Jensen v. Conrad

12 Citing cases

  1. Bass v. Gopal, Inc.

    384 S.C. 238 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    Both analyses depend on the defendants' knowledge of past or impending crimes on the premises; the innkeeper analysis uses this factor to determine the appropriate standard of care; and the merchant analysis uses this factor to determine whether there exists any duty of care in the first instance.See Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct.App. 1987) (holding that a judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors not affecting the result). South Carolina case law imposes a duty on innkeepers to provide to its guests reasonable protection against injuries from criminal acts, and the actual amount of protection required depends on amount and types of criminal activity that have previously occurred on the premises.

  2. Doe v. Boy Scout Troop 292

    Appellate Case No. 2012-213521 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016)

    Appellant argues (1) the circuit court erred in applying an adult standard to a developmentally disabled fourteen-year-old boy who was excluded from Troop 292 after reporting he was sexually abused by his scoutmaster; (2) the circuit court failed to construe the record in the light most favorable to Appellant; (3) the circuit court erred in applying a heightened burden of proof to this case; and (4) summary judgment was inappropriate in light of the alleged novelty of the case, the alleged pendency of discovery, the pendency of Appellant's motion to amend the complaint, and the "as is just" standard of Rule 56(f), SCRCP. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to Appellant's argument that the circuit court erred in applying an adult standard to John Doe: Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 1987) ("A judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors not affecting the result."); 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.

  3. Doe v. Boy Scout Troop 292

    2016-UP-049 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016)

    We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to Appellant's argument that the circuit court erred in applying an adult standard to John Doe: Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 1987) ("A judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors not affecting the result."); 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.") (quoting Small v. Pioneer Mach., Inc., 329 S.C. 448, 461, 494 S.E.2d 835, 841 (Ct. App. 1997))); Hancock v. Mid-S. Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 330-31, 673 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2009) ("[I]n cases requiring a heightened burden of proof[, ] . . . the non-moving party must submit more than a mere scintilla of evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment.

  4. Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC v. Gilleland-Prince

    Appellate Case No. 2013-000305 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2015)

    Furthermore, the master's interpretation—based on the extrinsic evidence presented at trial—was consistent with the contract's language. See Laser Supply, 382 S.C. at 336, 676 S.E.2d at 145; see also Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding a judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors that do not affect the result). Accordingly, while the master erred in referencing extrinsic evidence in his order, we find the master was merely setting forth alternative grounds for his interpretation that the damages term in the lease unambiguously entitled BTC to future rents.

  5. Bluffton Towne Center, LLC v. Gilleland-Prince

    412 S.C. 554 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 18 times

    Furthermore, the master's interpretation—based on the extrinsic evidence presented at trial—was consistent with the contract's language. See Laser Supply, 382 S.C. at 336, 676 S.E.2d at 145 ; see also Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct.App.1987) (holding a judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors that do not affect the result).Accordingly, while the master erred in referencing extrinsic evidence in his order, we find the master was merely setting forth alternative grounds for his interpretation that the damages term in the lease unambiguously entitled BTC to future rents.

  6. Scott v. Fortner

    Appellate Case No. 2012-213600 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2014)

    In a comparative negligence case, the trial court should grant the motion if the sole reasonable inference from the evidence is the non-moving party's negligence exceeded fifty percent." (citations omitted)); Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors not affecting the result). 3. As to whether the trial court erred in denying her motions for JNOV, a new trial absolute and a new trial pursuant to the thirteenth juror doctrine, we affirm.

  7. Scott v. Fortner

    2014-UP-092 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2014)

    In a comparative negligence case, the trial court should grant the motion if the sole reasonable inference from the evidence is the non-moving party's negligence exceeded fifty percent." (citations omitted)); Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors not affecting the result). 3.

  8. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Barker

    2012-UP-551 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012)

    Therefore, we affirm on this issue. See Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors not affecting the result). AFFIRMED.

  9. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Barker

    Appellate Case No. 2009-129487 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012)

    Therefore, we affirm on this issue. See Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors not affecting the result). AFFIRMED.

  10. Heos v. Lawton

    Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-024 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2012)

    Based on the foregoing, the master's error in declining to consider the extrinsic documents that post-dated the contract is not reversible. See Jensen v. Conrad, 292 S.C. 169, 172, 355 S.E.2d 291, 293 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a judgment will not be reversed for insubstantial errors not affecting the result). CONCLUSION