Harris v. Fabian

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 Michael Harris and Jennifer Harris, Appellants, v. Pamela Fabian, Respondent. Appeal From Beaufort County Marvin H. Dukes, III, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-259 Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed June 1, 2011 AFFIRMED Barry L. Johnson, of Okatie, for Appellants. Pamela Fabian, pro se, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Michael and Jennifer Harris appeal the trial court's order, which affirmed the magistrate court's order requiring the Harrises to pay $3,000 in damages to Pamela Fabian. On appeal, the Harrises argue the trial court improperly calculated the damages associated with the injuries suffered by Fabian's dog. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Sullivan v. City of Anderson, 81 S.C. 478, 481, 62 S.E. 862, 863 (1908) ("The general rule is that the owner of a horse or other animal, injured by the negligence of another, is entitled to recover the difference between the market value of the animal immediately before the injury and its market value immediately after the injury."); Id. at 481-482, 62 S.E. at 863 ("But where, as in this case, by the care and treatment of the owner, there has been a partial restoration, the measure of damages is the difference in the market value of the animal immediately before the injury and what would be its market value at the same time in its condition of partial restoration, together with the reasonable expenses of treatment and care."). AFFIRMED. WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.