House v. European Health Spa
| Decision Date | 07 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 20561,20561 |
| Citation | 269 S.C. 644,239 S.E.2d 653 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Tanya HOUSE, Respondent, v. The EUROPEAN HEALTH SPA, Appellant. |
Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Columbia, for appellant.
Barry B. George, Columbia, for respondent.
This is a personal injury action arising out of an incident in which Tanya House (Respondent) alleges she slipped on a foreign substance while entering a shower at the European Health Spa (Appellant). From a verdict for actual damages in favor of Respondent, the European Health Spa appeals arguing, among other questions, that it is not liable in that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is that Respondent was guilty of negligence which contributed as a proximate cause of her injury. We agree and reverse.
In considering an appeal from the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion for a directed verdict, this Court will review the evidence and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to Respondent. Easler v. Pappas, 252 S.C. 398, 166 S.E.2d 808 (1969).
Respondent's case was based solely on her own testimony. She had become a member of the Spa in May of 1974. She testified that she had used the facilities of the Spa on several occasions prior to her fall on June 30, 1974, and that on each occasion the showers were slippery, filthy and dirty. Further, she stated that she had slipped on some of these occasions due to these conditions. Her testimony reveals that upon entering the shower on the date with which this case is concerned, she did not look down at the condition of the shower step or floor, but simply took a step and fell.
The following excerpts from the testimony of Respondent are indicative of the lack of care exercised by her on this occasion.
Q. . . . Where were you stepping when you fell?
A. Stepping into the shower, stepping to the step to go to the shower.
Q. You were stepping up on this little divider between the showers and this hall?
A. Right.
Q. You had your foot on that divider?
A. Right.
Q. You were going to step on that divider?
A. Right.
Q. And that is when you fell? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you look on the top of that little divider before you stepped down?
A. No, I didn't look.
Q. Didn't look? Did you see anything on that?
A. No.
Q. You just put your foot there and fell down?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is all you know?
A. That is all I know.
It is established law in this jurisdiction that one who explicitly or implicitly, invites others on his premises for lawful purpose is not an insurer of their safety, but if unsafe conditions exist on the premises which are known to him, but unknown to them, he must warn them. Bradford v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 141 S.C. 453, 140 S.E. 105.
It is equally well settled that one who, with knowledge of conditions, goes into danger, he assumes the consequences and, even though there be negligence on the part of the other, if the complainant suffer hurt to which his negligence contributed as a proximate cause, without which it would not have occurred, he is barred of recovery.
Bolen v. Strange, 192 S.C. 284, 6 S.E.2d 466, 468-69 (1939) (emphasis added); accord Baker v. Clark, 233 S.C. 20, 103 S.E.2d 395 (1958).
By her own admission, Respondent knew, firsthand, the usual condition of the showers and the danger posed. Yet, without ever having protested the danger or ascertaining the condition of the showers on the day in question, she heedlessly proceeded to expose herself to the risk presented. The conduct of the Respondent constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law, and there is no question that such negligence was a contributing proximate cause of the injury. While it is generally true that contributory negligence is a question for determination by the jury, it is also true that when the evidence admits of but one reasonable inference, it becomes a matter of law for the determination of the court. The trial court was in error in submitting the case to the jury.
In the light of the foregoing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Paschal
...is susceptible of only one inference, however, contributory negligence becomes a question of law for the court. House v. European Health Spa, 269 S.C. 644, 239 S.E.2d 653 (1977). In this case, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Kimberly is susceptible of only the inference t......
-
Graham v. Whitaker
...to individual. Finally, Mrs. Graham was not warned of this known side effect as was the doctor's duty. House v. European Health Spa, 269 S.C. 644, 239 S.E.2d 653 (1977). She was left in the care of an untrained person and was essentially unattended at the time of the accident. Viewing the e......
-
Landry v. Hilton Head Plantation Property Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...concur. 1 At trial, Mrs. Landry expressly disavowed any contractual claim based on a breach of covenant.2 Cf. House v. European Health Spa, 269 S.C. 644, 239 S.E.2d 653 (1977) (a dues-paying health club member is an invitee); Crocker v. Barr, 305 S.C. 406, 409 S.E.2d 368 (1991) (a church me......
-
Thompson v. Michael
...is susceptible of only one inference, however, contributory negligence becomes a question of law for the court. House v. European Health Spa, 269 S.C. 644, 239 S.E.2d 653 (1977). In this case, the Michaels claim the trial judge erred in finding as a matter of law that Meredith was not contr......
-
D. Defenses
...278 S.C. 350, 296 S.E.2d 335 (1982); Merriman v. Sea Pines Plantation, 278 S.C. 263, 294 S.E.2d 423 (1982); House v. European Health Spa, 269 S.C. 644, 239 S.E.2d 653 (1977); Williams v. Kinney, 267 S.C. 163, 226 S.E.2d 555 (1976); Grainger v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 247 S.C. 293, 147 S.E......