To establish a cause of action for negligence, "a plaintiff must show that the (1) defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) defendant breached the duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury; and (4) plaintiff suffered an injury or damages." Schmidt v. Courtney , 357 S.C. 310, 592 S.E.2d 326, 333-34 (App. 2003). "An essential element in a cause of action for negligence is the existence of a legal duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff."

Appellants did not present any evidence demonstrating a change in Developer's position during that short time. See Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("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."); id. (requiring the nonmoving party to "come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial"); Shoney's, Inc., 291 S.C. at 314, 353 S.E.2d at 305 (stating the "omission of restrictions in some of the conveyances of lots in a subdivision being developed under a general scheme of restrictions may constitute an abandonment or waiver of the restrictions when considered in connection with other circumstances").

In a negligence action, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached the duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury or damages. Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 324, 592 S.E.2d 326, 334-35 (Ct. App. 2003). "Proximate cause requires proof of both causation in fact and legal cause."

Third, Vaughn claims that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause. In a negligence action, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached the duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury or damages. Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 324, 592 S.E.2d 326, 334-35 (Ct. App. 2003). "Proximate cause requires proof of both causation in fact and legal cause."

All ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising from the evidence must be construed most strongly against the moving party. Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 592 S.E.2d 326 (Ct.App. 2003); Bayle v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 542 S.E.2d 736 (Ct.App. 2001); see also Ferguson v.Charleston Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 349 S.C. 558, 563, 564 S.E.2d 94, 96 (2002) ("On appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the appellate court will review all ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising in and from the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party below."). Summary judgment is not appropriate where further inquiry into the facts of the case is desirable to clarify the application of the law.

Summary judgment is not appropriate where further inquiry into the facts of the case is desirable to clarify the application of the law. Moriarty v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God, 341 S.C. 320, 534 S.E.2d 672 (2000); Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 592 S.E.2d 326 (Ct.App. 2003). Even when there is no dispute as to evidentiary facts, but only as to the conclusions or inferences to be drawn from them, summary judgment should be denied.

To prove causation, a plaintiff must demonstrate both causation in fact and legal cause. Schmidt v. Courtney, 592 S.E.2d 326, 326 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003) (citing cases). Causation in fact is proved by establishing the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's negligence.

]” S.C.Code Ann. § 44–17–510 (2002) (providing procedure for petition to be made by “interested persons”); id. § 44–23–10(21) (defining “interested persons”). Respondents listed their relationship to Pallares as “Neighbors” on the form petition, which does not come within any of the permissible categories of persons eligible to petition for commitment under South Carolina law, as Respondents undeniably were not the “nearest friend[s]” of Pallares. Because there is evidence creating a question of material fact and further development of the record is needed, we find summary judgment is premature on the claim for abuse of process.See Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 592 S.E.2d 326 (Ct.App.2003) (holding summary judgment is inappropriate when further development of the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the law or when there is a dispute as to the conclusions and inferences to be drawn from the facts; the purpose of summary judgment is to expedite the disposition of cases which do not require the services of a fact finder). To the extent Respondents assert issues regarding the Noerr–Pennington doctrine and judicial immunity as additional sustaining grounds under Rule 220(c), SCACR, we find these grounds unavailing.

. See Rule 56(e), SCRCP (providing a party challenging a motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial"); Doe ex rel. Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 320, 548 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2001) (providing that Rule 56(e) "requires a party opposing summary judgment to come forward with affidavits or other supporting documents demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial"); Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("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.");

See Doe ex rel. Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 320, 548 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2001) (providing that Rule 56(e) "requires a party opposing summary judgment to come forward with affidavits or other supporting documents demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial"); Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("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.")