Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 3645.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MOREHEAD, Acting |
| Citation | 584 S.E.2d 398,355 S.C. 168 |
| Parties | Richard HANCOCK, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 3645.,3645. |
| Decision Date | 02 June 2003 |
355 S.C. 168
584 S.E.2d 398
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent
No. 3645.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Submitted March 10, 2003.
Decided June 2, 2003.
Rehearing Denied August 21, 2003.
Ronald B. Diegel, of Columbia, for Respondent.
MOREHEAD, Acting Judge:
Richard Hancock was injured while working for his employer on Wal-Mart's premises. Hancock filed suit in the circuit court, alleging his injuries were the result of Wal-Mart's negligence. The trial judge granted Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment, finding workers' compensation was Hancock's exclusive remedy. Hancock appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
Tru-Wheels, Inc., one of Wal-Mart's vendors, employed Hancock. Tru-Wheels provided Wal-Mart with individuals to assemble and set up Wal-Mart merchandise in the store. Hancock assembled merchandise exclusively for Wal-Mart. On a typical day, Hancock would report to the Wal-Mart manager and receive instructions about which items to assemble. Hancock assembled the items on the Wal-Mart premises and would report any problems to the applicable Wal-Mart department manager. Hancock was injured when, in the course of assembling riding lawnmowers, a Wal-Mart employee ran over his foot with a forklift.
Hancock filed suit in the circuit court, alleging his injuries were the result of Wal-Mart's negligence. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Hancock was a statutory employee and thus had workers' compensation as his exclusive remedy. The trial judge granted the motion, finding Hancock was limited to a workers' compensation claim because he was Wal-Mart's statutory employee.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is clear the moving party is
"In reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, this Court applies the same standard which governs the trial court." Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001). "On appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the appellate court will review all ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising in and from the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party below." Id.
DISCUSSION
I. Agreement
Hancock argues the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment without first reviewing the agreement between Tru-Wheels and Wal-Mart.
While Hancock raised this argument before the trial judge, it was not addressed in the final order. Despite this omission, Hancock did not file a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP. Accordingly, this issue is not preserved for review by this Court. See Fraternal Order of Police v. South Carolina Dep't of Revenue, 332 S.C. 496, 501, 506 S.E.2d 495, 497 (1998) (holding argument on appeal not preserved even where raised to the circuit court because "that court failed to rule on the issue and [appellants] failed to call this omission to the circuit court's attention in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion"); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (finding issue was not preserved for appellate review where the trial judge did not explicitly rule on the appellant's argument and the appellant made no Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment). Regardless, Hancock does not succeed on the merits of this argument.
Hancock submitted an affidavit from the manager of the Wal-Mart store where the accident occurred. The affidavit states "Wal-Mart has an agreement with Tru-Wheels, Inc. wherein Tru-Wheels, Inc. provides workers to set up and
There is no evidence in the record that a written agreement existed between Wal-Mart and Tru-Wheels....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Labor Depot, 4212.
...S.C. 589, 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002); McDowell v. Stilley Plywood Co., 210 S.C. 173, 41 S.E.2d 872 (1947); Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 S.C. 168, 584 S.E.2d 398 (Ct.App.2003)); see also Gray v. Club Group, Ltd., 339 S.C. 173, 184, 528 S.E.2d 435, 441 (Ct.App.2000) ("Before provisions of......
-
Posey v. Proper Mold & Engineering, Inc., 4381.
...is to seek relief under the Workers' Compensation Act. Edens, 359 S.C. at 445, 597 S.E.2d at 869; Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 S.C. 168, 173, 584 S.E.2d 398, 400 (Ct.App.2003). A statutory employee may not maintain a negligence cause of action against his direct employer or his sta......
-
Edens v. Bellini, 3815.
...his sole remedy for work-related injuries is to seek relief under the Workers' Compensation Act. Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 S.C. 168, 584 S.E.2d 398 (Ct.App.2003). He may not maintain a negligence cause of action against his direct employer or his statutory employer. Neese v. Mic......
-
Jackson v. Eastman Chem. Co., Civil Action No.: 5:17-cv-01015-JMC
...& Travel, Inc., C/A No. 9:10-0725-MBS, 2011 WL 1526731, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2011) (citing Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Page 8Inc., 584 S.E.2d 398, 400 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003)); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-540 (1985). Three tests are applied to determine whether the activity of a worker is......