Court Opinion

ID: 1002073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:05:36.742911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:21.037425
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CATHERINE KOPERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                       No. 99-2187

CAROLINA INN EXPRESS,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Julian Abele Cook, Jr., Senior District Judge, sitting by designation.
(CA-97-1269-9-8)

Submitted: June 27, 2000

Decided: July 27, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stephen A. Hampton, GRADY & HAMPTON, P.A., Dover, Dela-
ware, for Appellant. Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., S. Elizabeth Brosnan,
RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, P.A.,
Columbia, South Carolina; Douglas C. Baxter, RICHARDSON,
PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, P.A., Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Kopera appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Carolina
Inn Express ("Carolina Inn") in her civil action for damages against
the hotel and the district court's denial of her motion for new trial
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). We affirm.

In 1996, Kopera tripped and was injured in Carolina Inn's lobby.
She contends the accident was caused by an area rug that curled
upward in one corner. Carolina Inn admitted the rug curled upward
but contended Kopera tripped over a plastic mat, not the rug.

Kopera contends the district court erred in admitting the rug into
evidence. She argues that Carolina Inn failed to lay an adequate foun-
dation as to the rug's chain of custody and its condition at the time
of the accident. We disagree. The rug was identified by a former
owner of the Carolina Inn, which obviated the need to prove chain of
custody. See United States v. Humphrey, 208 F.3d 1190, 1204 (10th
Cir. 2000). Moreover, the same witness testified the rug's condition
had not changed since Kopera's accident; Kopera disputes this assess-
ment, but her concerns affect the weight of the evidence rather than
its admissibility. See United States v. Capers , 61 F.3d 1100, 1106 (4th
Cir. 1995).

For these reasons, we conclude the district court did not err in
admitting the rug as evidence. See Martin v. Cavalier Hotel Corp., 48
F.3d 1343, 1357 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that evidentiary rulings are
reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court's denial of a new trial and the judgment in favor of Carolina
Inn. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2