v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 289 S.C. 373, 346 S.E.2d 324, 325 (1986). “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.” Huggins v. Citibank, N.A., 355 S.C. 329, 585 S.E.2d 275, 276 (2003). For a duty to exist, the parties must have a relationship recognized by law. “The concept of duty in tort liability must not be extended beyond reasonable limits.” Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 346 S.E.2d at 326. If there is no duty, the defendant is entitle was owed to pilots and longshoremen whose work suffered as a result of a consultant’s opinion that the Charleston port would not have as much traffic as Savannah); Edens & Avant Inv. Props., Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 318 S.C. 134, 456 S.E.2d 406 (1995) (<HOLDING>); cf. Willis v. Georgia N. Ry. Co., 169 Ga.App.
holding that an option to purchase stock is property under section 1129b2bii holding that granting an option to purchase constituted a trigger holding that a question of fact existed as to whether defendants alleged predicate acts directly injured plaintiff under the parties real estate development contract after defendants forced plaintiff out of further development of the property holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury holding no liability in negligence for plaintiffs outofpocket development costs allegedly lost as a result of defendants pollution injury to property which plaintiff had option to purchase