its failure to comply and after being assessed attorney’s fees). On the other hand, a sanction amounting to a judgment of default or dismissal has been deemed “too severe” without a showing of intentional misconduct or willful disobedience. For example, in Kershaw County Board of Education, our supreme court determined that dismissal was too severe of a sanction for the plaintiffs failure to comply with a court order to notify the defendants before it removed asbestos. 302 S.C. at 394-95, 396 S.E.2d at 371-72. The court based this determination on the fact that dismissal would not protect the rules of discovery and there was no evidence of intentional misconduct by the plaintiff. Id. at 395, 396 S.E.2d at 372; see also Orlando v. Boyd, 320 S.C. 509, 511-12, 466 S.E.2d 353, 355 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Baughman v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 298 S.C.
holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that claim of counsels inadequate time to investigate without any showing of harm failed to establish an abuse of discretion holding that precluding a witness from testifying was an abuse of discretion without a showing of intentional misconduct when exclusion amounted to a judgment of default or dismissal holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative holding no abuse of discretion when the moving party failed to make an offer of proof by showing what the witness would testify to if present