Dema v. Shore Enterprises, Ltd., 2066
| Decision Date | 27 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 2066,2066 |
| Citation | 435 S.E.2d 875,312 S.C. 528 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,705 Lawrence J. DEMA and Patricia J. Dema, Appellants, v. SHORE ENTERPRISES, LTD., Anthony Razinni, Bradley Rudisill, Howard C. Parker, d/b/a Aqua-Cycle International; Surfside Water Sports, Inc.; Town of Hilton Head Island, A Body Politic; Carlisle J. McNair; and Sailing, Inc., Defendants, of whom Howard Parker, d/b/a Aqua-Cycle International, and the Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, A Body Politic, are Respondents. |
Thomas C. Taylor, of Bethea, Jordan & Griffin, Hilton Head Island, for appellants.
C. Scott Graber, of Graber & Baldwin; and Stephen P. Hughes, of Howell, Gibson & Hughes, Beaufort, for respondents.
This is a products liability action. Lawrence J. Dema and his wife, Patricia, sued Anthony Razinni and Bradley Rudisill; Shore Enterprises, Ltd.; Carlisle J. McNair; Sailing, Inc.; Surfside Water Sports, Inc.; Howard Parker; and the Town of Hilton Head Island for injuries arising out of a collision with a recreational water vehicle known as an Aqua-Cycle. The accident occurred while Dema was body surfing at a public beach on Hilton Head Island. The circuit court granted a directed verdict to the manufacturer, Howard Parker, as to the Demas' claims for strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and negligence. It also granted a directed verdict to the Town of Hilton Head Island as to the Demas' negligence claim. The jury found in favor of all the remaining defendants, including Shore Enterprises, Ltd., which, under franchise from the Town, rented Aqua-Cycles to the public. The Demas appeal from the directed verdicts in favor of Parker and the Town. We affirm.
The Demas argue the circuit court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Parker, because there was evidence from which the jury could have reasonably found that Parker sold the Aqua-Cycle in an unreasonably dangerous defective condition. The alleged defect was the absence of a warning label on the Aqua-Cycle cautioning the user to "watch out for swimmers" and to "avoid strong current, wind, or waves." The court ruled, as a matter of law, the failure to place this warning on the Aqua-Cycle was not the proximate cause of the injuries to the Demas.
In a products liability action, the plaintiff must establish the following three elements regardless of whether the theory under which he seeks to recover is strict liability, breach of warranty, or negligence: (1) that he was injured by the product; (2) that the product, at the time of the accident, was in essentially the same condition as when it left the hands of the defendant; and (3) that the injury occurred because the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user. Madden v. Cox, 284 S.C. 574, 328 S.E.2d 108 (Ct.App.1985). On this appeal, only the third element is in dispute.
The question presented for our decision is whether the evidence is susceptible of the reasonable inference that the Aqua-Cycle was defective. We must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Claytor v. General Motors Corp., 277 S.C. 259, 286 S.E.2d 129 (1982).
A product is not defective for failure to warn of the obvious. Koester v. Carolina Rental Center, Inc., --- S.C. ----, 427 S.E.2d 708 (Ct.App.1993); see Claytor, supra. The uncontroverted evidence, including Mr. Dema's own testimony, was that, even without a written warning, users of the Aqua-Cycle would be aware, as a matter of common sense, that they should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delaney v. Deere and Co., No. 82,630.
...792, 276 Minn. 1, 148 N.W.2d 312 (1967); Grady v. American Optical Corp., 702 S.W.2d 911 (Mo. App. 1985); Dema v. Shore Enterprises, Ltd., 312 S.C. 528, 435 S.E.2d 875 (Ct. App. 1993); Jahnig v. Coisman, 283 N.W.2d 557 (S.D. 1979); Pfizer v. Jones, 221 Va. 681, 272 S.E.2d 43 (1980); Hansen ......
-
Anderson v. Green Bull, Inc.
...a seller is not required to warn of dangers or potential dangers that are generally known and recognized. Dema v. Shore Enters., Ltd., 312 S.C. 528, 435 S.E.2d 875 (Ct.App.1993); Koester v. Carolina Rental Ctr., 311 S.C. 115, 427 S.E.2d 708 (Ct.App.1993), rev'd on other grounds, 313 S.C. 49......
-
Gareis v. 3M Co.
...for failing to warn only if the plaintiff shows "that he was injured by the product" in question. Dema v. Shore Enters., Ltd. , 312 S.C. 528, 435 S.E.2d 875, 876 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993) ; Bragg , 462 S.E.2d at 326 ; Madden , 328 S.E.2d at 112 ; see also Bray v. Marathon Corp. , 356 S.C. 111, 5......
-
Ravenell v. Pugmill Sys., Inc.
...whether the theory under which he seeks to recover is strict liability, breach of warranty, or negligence." Dema v. Shore Enters., Ltd., 435 S.E.2d 875, 876 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993). As an initial matter, the Court concludes that without the benefit and support of expert testimony on the ultima......
-
Renewed look at the duty to warn and affirmative defenses.
...882 F.2d 993, 997 (5th Cir. 1989); Curtis v. Universal Match Corp., 778 F.Supp. 1421, 1425 (E.D. Tenn. 1991); Dema v. Shore Enters. Inc., 435 S.E.2d 875, 876 (S.C. App. 1993); Duane, 833 P.2d at 286; Entrekin v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 519 So.2d 447, 450 (Ala. 1987); Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Poo......