Court Opinion

ID: 9847586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:02:38.723112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:21.234550
License: Public Domain

Cureton, Judge
(dissenting):
This dissent was originally submitted to the members of the court as a proposed majority opinion. The majority of the panel has taken a contrary view. I have made several modifications and deletions to the proposed majority opin*513ion which I now submit as my view of the proper determination of the issues.
We cannot reverse the verdict of a jury unless the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from the evidence is contrary to the factual findings implicit in the verdict. Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., 279 S. C. 458, 309 S. E. (2d) 295 (Ct. App. 1983). On appeal from a jury verdict our review is limited to determining if there is any evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict. Elders v. Parker, 286 S. C. 228, 332 S. E. (2d) 563 (Ct. App. 1985). In ruling on motions for summary judgment, involuntary nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, the evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Davis v. Piedmont Engineers, Architects & Planners, P.A., 284 S. C. 20, 324 S. E. (2d) 325, 326 (Ct. App. 1984) (summary judgment); Mylin v. Allen-White Pontiac, Inc., 281 S. C. 174, 178, 314 S. E. (2d) 354 (Ct. App. 1984) (nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment n.o.v. and new trial). I therefore, review the record in accordance with these principles giving Young the benefit of all inferences where the evidence is conflicting.
Young, a fifty-three year old obese, diabetic woman was a regular Piggly Wiggly customer. On a rainy Saturday in September 1982, she entered the busy supermarket and fell backward, hitting her head hard against the floor. She slipped just inside of the entrance door and in front of a yellow mop bucket with “wet floor” written on it. Young expressly denied that she had staged the fall. In language which demonstrated her lack of formal education and guilelessness, she testified that the floor was wet and that her clothes became wet from the fall. Because of the pain in her neck, head and back, she went straight from the supermarket to a hospital emergency room where she was examined, x-rayed and released. Thereafter, she received treatment for headache, backache and insomnia from a chiropractor, who testified that Young’s low back pain was permanent and that she also suffered injury to her neck. It is undisputed that her total medical expenses were One Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,150.00).
Two employees of Piggly Wiggly testified at trial. The *514young assistant manager, an eyewitness, testified that he believed that Young staged the fall even though she received a “hard lick.” He testified that he and other employees had mopped the floor around the entrance every five to ten minutes that day but that the floor could still be “slick” after being mopped. He also testified that while one mat was laid outside the door and another just inside the door to absorb water, a mat had not been placed where Young fell: that is, along the path which customers customarily traveled between the entrance door and the shopping carts. Moreover, he also prepared an accident report in which he listed “wet floor” as the cause of Young’s fall.
The front-end store manager, a twenty-year employee, also testified that on rainy days he had seen customers “skid” near the entrance and that at one time the store had extra mats which were used during rainy weather but on the day in question the store had only two mats.
In order for Young to prevail, she had to prove the elements of negligence: that is (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant; (2) a breach of the duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damages proximately resulting from the negligent act or omission. See e.g. Brown v. South Carolina Insurance Co., 284 S. C. 47, 51, 324 S. E. (2d) 641, 644 (Ct. App. 1984). “It has long been the law in South Carolina that a merchant is not an insurer of the safety of his customers but owes them only the duty of exercising ordinary care to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition.” Milligan v. Winn-Dixie Raleigh, Inc., 273 S. C. 118, 120, 254 S. E. (2d) 798, 799 (1979) (emphasis added).
After reviewing the evidence in this case I find there is some evidence upon which a jury could base a verdict that Piggly Wiggly failed to keep its premises reasonably safe. One store manager had in the past observed people “skid” on the floor on rainy days and knew that the store once supplied additional mats on rainy days. Another manager admitted that the floor could have been “slick” after being mopped. These facts would allow a jury to conclude that Piggly Wiggly failed to keep the premises reasonably safe. Additionally, a jury could infer from the fact that since Young’s clothes were wet when she arose from the floor that sufficient water had accumulated to make the floor slippery. *515Cf. 62 Am. Jur. (2d) Premises Liability Section 223 (1972) (the presence of spots of wax or oil on plaintiffs clothing after a fall are frequently held to be relevant factors of a dangerous floor condition).
Piggly Wiggly argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by allowing Young to introduce portions of a deposition after she had closed her case-in-chief and after it had made a motion for involuntary nonsuit. The trial judge was persuaded by Young’s argument that the evidence which it sought to introduce had not been presented in her case-in-chief because counsel thought he had presented sufficient evidence in view of the prior favorable ruling on the summary judgment motion. On appeal Piggly Wiggly argues that “judicial efficiency would dictate that if an attorney failed to advance evidence as to the critical parts of his client’s prima facie case, an involuntary nonsuit should be granted to deter parties from coming into court unprepared and thus, needlessly lengthening the time it takes to try a case.”
I disagree. Reopening a case is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge who may allow a party to reopen in order to prevent a nonsuit where counsel has “omitted evidence by accident, inadvertance, or even because of mistake or misapprehension as to the necessity for offering a particular witness or particular evidence. ” Chapman v. Associated Transport, Inc., 218 S. C. 554, 563, 63 S. E. (2d) 465, 469 (1951) (emphasis added). Piggly Wiggly has shown no prejudice from this ruling and the trial of this case was not unduly lengthened inasmuch as Piggly Wiggly proceeded with its case immediately after the introduction of the deposition testimony.
Piggly Wiggly argues that it should be granted a new trial because the trial judge failed to charge the jury on all controlling legal principles, particularly that there is no duty to warn the public of open and obvious conditions. I disagree. “It is not error to refuse a request to charge even if it contains a correct and applicable statement of the law if its substance is fairly covered by the court’s general charge.” O’Neal v. Carolina Farm Supply, 270 S. C. 490, 495, 309 S. E. (2d) 776, 779-80 (Ct. App. 1983). I believe that the instructions given fairly covered the applicable law, I also *516note that the trial judge did, in fact, charge the jury that a storekeeper’s duty to warn customers arose from the existence of “dangerous conditions.”
Piggly Wiggly finally argues that the verdict of Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000.00) was excessive in view of the fact that Young’s medical expenses totalled only One Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,150.00). Piggly Wiggly suggested that it is entitled to a new trial unless Young accepts a reduced verdict. I disagree. The verdict is not so grossly excessive that we must conclude that the jury yielded to passion or prejudice and disregarded either the facts or the trial judge’s instructions. See King v. Daniel International Corp., 278 S. C. 350, 355, 296 S. E. (2d) 335, 338 (1982). In view of Young’s permanent injury, pain and suffering and medical bills I would hold verdict was not excessive.
Having found no error I would affirm the trial judge.