Hancock v. Mid-South Management Co., Inc., 26587.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: Toal
• Citation: 673 S.E.2d 801
• Parties: Betty J. HANCOCK, Petitioner, v. MID-SOUTH MANAGEMENT CO., INC., Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. 26587.,26587.
• Decision Date: 26 January 2009

673 S.E.2d 801 Betty J. HANCOCK, Petitioner,
v.
MID-SOUTH MANAGEMENT CO., INC., Respondent. No. 26587. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard November 5, 2008. Decided January 26, 2009. Rehearing Denied March 18, 2009.

[673 S.E.2d 802]

Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., of Rushing & Griffith, and Samuel M. Price, Jr., both of Newberry, for Petitioner.

Elizabeth M. Dalzell and Kirby D. Shealy, III, both of Baker, Ravenel & Bender, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Chief Justice TOAL:

In Hancock v. Mid-South Management Co., Inc., the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent Mid-South Management Company. 370 S.C. 131, 634 S.E.2d 12 (Ct.App.2006). We granted a writ of certiorari to review that decision and now reverse.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner Betty J. Hancock filed a negligence action against Respondent after she tripped and fell in the parking lot of the office of The Newberry Observer, which is owned by Respondent. Petitioner alleged Respondent was negligent in failing to maintain a safe premises. Respondent moved for summary judgment, and at the hearing, the parties submitted deposition testimony from Petitioner and Petitioner's daughter-in-law (Daughter) and photographs of the parking lot. Although Petitioner could not identify the exact cause of her fall, she testified that she tripped on "a rock or something to that effect," "something raised up," and "broken asphalt." Daughter, who witnessed the fall, testified that Petitioner "tripped on that mess in front of the Observer." Additionally, Petitioner submitted an affidavit from a former employee who worked at the office of The Newberry Observer which provided that the employees were aware that the parking lot was in disrepair and that they had complained to management regarding the deteriorated state of the parking lot.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent finding that the change in the elevation in the parking lot caused Petitioner's fall, that the change in elevation was not a dangerous condition, and that even if it was a dangerous condition, Respondent had no duty to warn since the elevation change was an open and obvious condition. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling.

This Court granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision, and Petitioner presents the following issue for review:

Did the court of appeals err in affirming the circuit court's decision granting summary judgment?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is clear the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), SCRCP. In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all inferences which can be reasonably drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Koester v. Carolina Rental Ctr., 313 S.C. 490, 493, 443 S.E.2d 392, 394 (1994).

LAW/ANALYSIS

We first address Respondent's argument that Petitioner must present more than a mere scintilla of evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment. The rule followed in the federal court system provides that "a `mere scintilla of evidence' is not sufficient to withstand the challenge." Rogers v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 356 S.C. 85, 92, 588 S.E.2d 87, 90 (2003),...