Court Opinion

ID: 9624974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:23:43.906705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:33.638083
License: Public Domain

*649Ness, Justice
(concurring) :
At the trial level the judge consistently instructed the jury they had to find negligence on the part of the defendant before they could reach the issue of whether or not the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Here the majority opinion apparently assumes negligence as the issue is not addressed. I would hold that respondent has failed to establish an actionable omission or commission on the part of the appellant.
The burdent of proof is squarely upon the respondent in a slip and fall case resulting from a foreign substance on the floor to establish that the owner had either allowed the substance to accumulate or had done nothing to remove it or to warn patrons of its existence. Orr v. Saylor, 253 S. C. 155, 169 S. E. (2d) 396 (1969). Such proof was not adduced by the respondent and accordingly the trial judge erred in submitting the issue of the appellant’s negligence to the jury. The testimony by respondent concerning the condition of the floor on prior occasions does not suffice to establish the proximate cause of her fall on the instant occasion.