Burns v. Wannamaker, 0155
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GOOLSBY |
| Citation | 315 S.E.2d 179,281 S.C. 352 |
| Parties | Mary Sue BURNS, Respondent, v. Robert L. WANNAMAKER, D.D.S., Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 0155,0155 |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1984 |
Page 179
v.
Robert L. WANNAMAKER, D.D.S., Appellant.
Decided April 16, 1984.
Page 180
[281 S.C. 353] John L. Choate, of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for appellant.
Carlos Gibbons, of Kneece, Kneece, Freeman, Willoughby & Ashley, Columbia, for respondent.
Heyward E. McDonald, Mary Lowndes Bryan, Rogers, McDonald, McKenzie, Fuller & Rubin, Columbia, for amicus curiae The South Carolina Dental Ass'n.
GOOLSBY, Judge.
This appeal concerns an express pre-treatment warranty allegedly given by a dentist. We affirm the Circuit Court to the extent that it found that an express pre-treatment warranty[281 S.C. 354] to effect a particular result can be extended in South Carolina by a dentist; however, we reverse the Circuit Court's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support the magistrate's finding of fact that the appellant Robert L. Wannamaker, a dentist, gave and breached an express warranty as to the manufacture and fit of dentures purchased from him by the respondent Mary Sue Burns and we remand the issue for determination in accordance with Section 18-7-170 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976.
Mrs. Burns brought an action against Dr. Wannamaker in the Magistrate's Court and alleged claims involving, among other things, a breach of contract and a breach of an express pre-treatment warranty. The magistrate found that Dr. Wannamaker breached a contract and an express warranty as to the manufacture and fit of the dentures sold Mrs. Burns. Judgment was entered in her favor in the amount of $550, and Dr. Wannamaker appealed to the Circuit Court.
Page 181
The Circuit Court held that South Carolina would recognize a cause of action based upon a breach of an express pre-treatment warranty to achieve a specific result given by a dentist. It also concluded that the evidence in the record supported the magistrate's findings of fact as to a breach of an express pre-treatment warranty. In affirming the judgment, the Circuit Court reduced the amount of recovery to the price paid by Mrs. Burns for her dentures and to court costs. Dr. Wannamaker appeals to this court asserting that South Carolina does not recognize a common law action for breach of an express warranty given by a dentist and that, in any event, the evidence does not reasonably support, as the Circuit Court held, the finding of fact by the magistrate that an express pre-treatment warranty was given by Dr. Wannamaker.
I.
Although there are no cases in South Carolina which address the issue of whether a dentist may enlarge his responsibilities and contract to fulfill specific assurances, we know of no reason why he should not be allowed to do so. See Preston v. Thompson, 53 N.C.App. 290, 280 S.E.2d 780, 781 (1981), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 304 N.C. 392, 285 S.E.2d 833 (1981). A dentist should be as free as any other person who offers to perform skilled services to [281 S.C. 355] contract as he sees fit. If a dentist chooses, he should be able to warrant the results of his treatment. Guilmet v. Campbell, 385 Mich. 57, 188 N.W.2d 601, 43 A.L.R.3d 1194 (1971). Indeed, it appears well settled elsewhere that a physician or other healer may bind himself by an express contract to obtain specific results by either treatment or an operation. See 61 Am.Jur.2d Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers § 161 at 292-93 (1981).
Some courts hold,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holy Loch Distributors v. Hitchcock, No. 2860.
...to seek recovery from her dentist for breach of an express pretreatment warranty to effect a particular result. Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984), appeal after remand, 286 S.C. 336, 333 332 S.C. 260 S.E.2d 358 (Ct.App.1985), aff'd as modified, 288 S.C. 398, 343......
-
Rutledge v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., No. 0533
...in an action founded on an express pre-treatment warranty, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984). The same standard is required in a fraud and deceit case. Blackmon v. United Insurance Co., 235 S.C. 335, 111 S......
-
Hadfield v. Gilchrist, No. 3246.
...the judgment of the court below, in whole or in part, as to any or all the parties and for errors of law or fact. In Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984), this Court As is readily apparent, Section 18-7-170 confers authority upon the Circuit Court to reverse a mag......
-
Harvey v. Strickland, No. 25491.
...to effect a particular result. Banks v. Medical University of South Carolina, 314 S.C. 376, 444 S.E.2d 519 (1994); Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984), aff'd as modified 288 S.C. 398, 343 S.E.2d 27 Viewing the above evidence, as we must, in the light most favorab......
-
Holy Loch Distributors v. Hitchcock, No. 2860.
...to seek recovery from her dentist for breach of an express pretreatment warranty to effect a particular result. Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984), appeal after remand, 286 S.C. 336, 333 332 S.C. 260 S.E.2d 358 (Ct.App.1985), aff'd as modified, 288 S.C. 398, 343......
-
Rutledge v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., No. 0533
...in an action founded on an express pre-treatment warranty, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984). The same standard is required in a fraud and deceit case. Blackmon v. United Insurance Co., 235 S.C. 335, 111 S......
-
Hadfield v. Gilchrist, No. 3246.
...the judgment of the court below, in whole or in part, as to any or all the parties and for errors of law or fact. In Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984), this Court As is readily apparent, Section 18-7-170 confers authority upon the Circuit Court to reverse a mag......
-
Harvey v. Strickland, No. 25491.
...to effect a particular result. Banks v. Medical University of South Carolina, 314 S.C. 376, 444 S.E.2d 519 (1994); Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984), aff'd as modified 288 S.C. 398, 343 S.E.2d 27 Viewing the above evidence, as we must, in the light most favorab......