Smith v. Carolina's Got Talent

• Decision Date: 23 November 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-UP-412,Appellate Case 2019-001746
• Parties: Luke M. Smith, Erica Smith, Peggy Burger, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Caitlyn Burger, Shawonnah Davis, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Sania Williams, Edison Chichester, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Jennifer Chichester, Jenna Grace Singleton, and Dale Singleton, Appellants, v. Carolina's Got Talent, Wardell Brantley, South Carolina Media Arts Academy, Winyah Auditorium, City of Georgetown, County of Georgetown, WPDE ABC 15, WWMB CW21, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Howard Stirk Holdings, and Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation, Defendants, Of which County of Georgetown is Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Luke M. Smith, Erica Smith, Peggy Burger, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Caitlyn Burger, Shawonnah Davis, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Sania Williams, Edison Chichester, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Jennifer Chichester, Jenna Grace Singleton, and Dale Singleton, Appellants,
v.
Carolina's Got Talent, Wardell Brantley, South Carolina Media Arts Academy, Winyah Auditorium, City of Georgetown, County of Georgetown, WPDE ABC 15, WWMB CW21, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Howard Stirk Holdings, and Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation, Defendants,

Of which County of Georgetown is Respondent.

No. 2022-UP-412

Appellate Case No. 2019-001746

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

November 23, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted September 1, 2022

Appeal From Georgetown County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

1

John Dwight Hudson, of Hudson Law Offices, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellants.

Michael Warner Battle, of Battle Law Firm, LLC, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In this action arising out of a talent competition in which prizes were never awarded, the plaintiffs (Appellants) appeal the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to one of the defendants, Georgetown County (the County). Appellants contend the circuit court erred in determining the County had no connection, control, sponsorship, or association with any defendant and it was immune from suit under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (the Act)^[1] when genuine issues of material fact existed, some of the legal issues were novel, and discovery was incomplete. We affirm^[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the circuit court erred in in granting summary judgment when there were novel questions of law and discovery was incomplete: S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) ("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))); Patterson v. Reid, 318 S.C. 183, 185, 456 S.E.2d 436, 437 (Ct. App. 1995) ("A party cannot for the first time raise an issue by way of a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] motion which could have been raised at trial."); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456, 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) to present to the court an issue the party could have raised prior to judgment but did not."); R &G Constr., Inc. v. Lowcountry Reg'l Transp. Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 437, 540 S.E.2d 113, 120 (Ct. App. 2000) ("An issue is deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is only conclusory."); Med. Univ. of S.C. v. Arnaud, 360 S.C. 615, 620, 602 S.E.2d 747, 750 (2004) (noting issues are deemed abandoned when the arguments on those issues are conclusory); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (finding an appellant had abandoned an issue by failing to provide

2

arguments or supporting authority for that issue); State v. Colf, 332 S.C. 313, 322, 504 S.E.2d 360, 364 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding a conclusory, two-paragraph argument that cited no authority other than an evidentiary rule was abandoned), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 337 S.C. 622, 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000).

2. As to whether the circuit court incorrectly applied the summary judgment standard when there were issues of material fact and the court was required to view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to Appellants as the nonmoving party: David v. McLeod Reg'l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 250, 626 S.E.2d 1, 5 (2006) ("A court considering summary judgment neither makes factual determinations nor considers the merits of competing testimony; however, summary judgment is completely appropriate when a properly supported motion sets forth facts that remain undisputed or are contested in a deficient manner."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 197-98, 659 S.E.2d 196, 203 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings. The nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." (citation omitted)); Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 320, 548 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2001) ("Rule 56(e), SCRCP, . . . requires a party opposing summary judgment to come forward with affidavits or other supporting documents demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial."); Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 64, 580 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2003) ("The rule governing summary judgment provides that '[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.'" (emphasis and alteration by court) (quoting Rule 56(e), SCRCP)); Jackson v. Bermuda Sands, Inc., 383 S.C. 11, 17, 677 S.E.2d 612, 616 (Ct. App. 2009) ("A jury issue is created when there is material evidence tending to establish the issue in the mind of a reasonable juror. 'However, this rule does not authorize submission of speculative, theoretical, and hypothetical views to the jury.'" (citation omitted) (quoting Small v. Pioneer Mach., Inc., 329 S.C. 448, 461, 494 S.E.2d 835, 841 (Ct. App...