Smith v. Wal-Mart

Case Name:  Smith v. Wal-Mart

Cite:  314 S.C. 248, 442 S.E.2d 606 (1994)

Case History:  Trial court directed verdict against the plaintiff. Appellate court affirmed the verdict. The Supreme Court (this case) reversed the directed verdict.

Type of Premises Liability:  Foreign substance on the floor caused by place of business

Pro-Plaintiff or Pro-Defendant:  Pro-Plaintiff

Cases Citing This Case:  Garvin v. Bi-Lo, Inc., Shain v. Leiserv, Inc., Genovese v. Bergeron, Hoover v. Broome, Payton v. Kearse, Sullivan v. Davis,  Singletary v. S.C. Department of Education

Cases Cited in This Case:  Howard v. K-Mart Discount Stores, 293 S.C. 134, 359 S.E.2d 81 (Ct. App. 1987), Wimberley v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 252 S.C. 117, 165 S.E.2d 627 (1969 S.C.), Moore v. Levitre, 294 S.C. 453, 365 S.E.2d 730 (1988 S.C.)

Case Holding:  To avoid a directed verdict in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the storekeeper was responsible for creating the hazard which caused the fall or had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the hazard. The motion should be denied if the evidence yields more than one inference or if its inferences are in doubt. 

The evidence in this case shows that Smith fell in an area where a Wal-Mart employee was using water and cleaning substances to remove wax buildup from the floor. Viewing the evidence and the inferences which can be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we find that Smith presented evidence from which a jury might infer that Wal-Mart created a hazardous condition that caused her to fall.

Thoughts About This Case:

Case Text:   

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff shopper sought review of a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Clarendon County (South Carolina), which affirmed the trial court's granting of the motion of defendant store for a directed verdict at the close of the shopper's evidence in her personal injury action against the store after she slipped and fell in the store while shopping.

OVERVIEW: A shopper slipped and fell in the store. She filed an action against the store seeking damages for her injury as a result of the fall. The evidence at trial showed that a store employee was stripping wax from the shopping floor and that the floor was slick. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the store at the close of the shopper's evidence and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that the shopper had failed to present evidence from which a jury could infer that the store had caused the shopper's fall. On further appeal, the court reversed, concluding that the lower courts erred in finding for the store without allowing the issue of causation to go the jury. The court found that the shopper had fallen in an area where an employee was creating a slippery condition. Thus, upon viewing the evidence and the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the shopper, the non-moving party, the court found that the shopper presented evidence from which a jury might infer that the store created a hazardous condition that caused her to fall.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals that affirmed the trial court's granting of the store's motion for a directed verdict in the shopper's slip and fall action.

[HN1] In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, the trial judge is required to view the evidence and the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. To avoid a directed verdict in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the storekeeper was responsible for creating the hazard which caused the fall or had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the hazard. The motion should be denied if the evidence yields more than one inference or if its inferences are in doubt.

COUNSEL: John P. Ford and Terrell T. Horne, both of Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman, and McElveen, of Sumter, for Appellant.

Harry C. Wilson, Jr., of Lee, Wilson, and Erter, of Sumter, for Respondent. 

JUDGES: HARWELL, CHANDLER, FINNEY, TOAL, MOORE

OPINION BY: HARWELL

OPINION
[*249]   [**607]  ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
HARWELL, C.J.: We granted Vanessa D. Smith's (Smith) petition for writ of certiorari to review Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,    S.C.   , 427 S.E.2d 712 (Ct. App. 1993). Smith contends that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming a directed verdict for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) on the ground that there was no evidence of the cause of Smith's fall. We agree and reverse.
I. Facts
Smith instituted this action seeking recovery for damages she incurred as a result of falling in Wal-Mart. At trial, Smith testified that she fell while walking past some shopping carts "scattered" in an aisle, but did not say what caused her fall. Larry E. Fogle (Fogle), an employee of Wal-Mart, testified that he was cleaning wax buildup  [***2]  in the aisle where Smith fell  [*250]  and had arranged the carts around the work area as a barricade. Fogle stated that he was using a foaming wax stripper to soften old wax, removing the wax with a stiff brush, and then cleaning the brush in a nearby bucket of water. Fogle testified that he was cleaning from the outside to the inside of the barricaded area and that Smith fell inside the barricaded area.
At the close of Smith's case, Wal-Mart moved for a directed verdict, on the ground that Smith failed to present any evidence from which a jury could infer that Wal-Mart had negligently caused her fall. The trial judge granted the motion and Smith appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's ruling, holding that under Howard v. K-Mart Discount Stores, 293 S.C. 134, 359 S.E.2d 81 (Ct. App. 1987), evidence that the floor was slick, without evidence of a hazardous condition, does not establish an inference of negligence sufficient for presentation of the issue to the jury. Smith at    , 427 S.E.2d at 417. We granted Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari.
II. Discussion
Smith contends that  [***3]  the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the directed verdict for Wal-Mart. We agree.
[HN1] In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, the trial judge is required to view the evidence and the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. To avoid a directed verdict in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the storekeeper was responsible for creating the hazard which caused the fall or had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the hazard. Wimberley v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 252 S.C. 117, 165 S.E.2d 627 (1969). The motion should be denied if the evidence yields more than one inference or if its inferences are in doubt.  Moore v. Levitre, 294 S.C. 453, 365 S.E.2d 730 (1988).
The evidence in this case shows that Smith fell in an area where a Wal-Mart employee was using water and cleaning substances to remove wax buildup from the floor. Viewing the evidence and the inferences which can be drawn from the evidence  [*251]  in the [***4]  light most favorable to the non-moving party, we find that Smith presented evidence from which a jury might infer that Wal-Mart created a hazardous condition that caused her to fall. Accordingly, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is

REVERSED.
CHANDLER, FINNEY, TOAL and MOORE, JJ., concur.

Comments

[Ajlouny & Associates]

Ajlouny & Associates New York slip and fall lawyers skilled in helping victims who have slipped, tripped and fallen in a hazardous workplace, on a construction site, in a mall, restaurant and any other public place. If you have been seriously injured in a fall, contact our law office to speak to one of our experienced slip and fall lawyer.

[David hogard]

Most of the occurring injuries at work take place due to faulty manual handling, which involves the transport or the support of loads by either hands or physical force. The key point to be noticed is that these injuries can arise at every workplace; be it a factory, building site, hospital, laboratory, warehouses, and other workplaces. Hence, it is urgently essential to adopt effective manual handling training to prevent these manual handling dangers.

http://justblogme.com/workworkwork/320219/Techniques+to+Avoid+Work+Place+Hazards.html