Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-250 - Carrigg v. Gilbert

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

John Carrigg, Sr., Respondent,

v.

Mable Gilbert, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-250
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 26, 2010


AFFIRMED


Barrett R. Brewer, of Charleston, for Appellant.

John  Carrigg, Jr., of Irmo, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   The appeal arises from a personal injury case in which John Carrigg was awarded a jury verdict of $12,277.08.  Mable Gilbert appeals the award of costs for the video depositions of two of Carrigg's witnesses.  Specifically, Gilbert argues (1) for the purposes of recovering these costs, court reporters and videographers are not "commissioners" under section 15-37-40 of the South Carolina Code (2005) and (2) section 15-37-40 does not allow the recovery of video deposition costs because they are not expressly allowed by statute or by rule of court.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  Concerning whether court reporters are commissioners under section 15-37-40: S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 ("'There are four basic requirements to preserving issues at trial for appellate review.  The issue must have been (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity.'" (quoting Jean Hoefer Toal et al., Appellate Practice in South Carolina 57 (2d ed. 2002))).

2.  Concerning Gilbert's remaining arguments: Id. (holding in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court).

 AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


[1]   We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.