Neil v. Byrum
| Decision Date | 26 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22536,22536 |
| Citation | 288 S.C. 472,343 S.E.2d 615 |
| Parties | Dorothy G. NEIL, Respondent, v. Mary Frances BYRUM, Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Forrest C. Wilkerson, of Roddey, Carpenter & White, P.A., Rock Hill, for appellant.
Stephen R. McCrae, Jr., of Spratt, McKeown & McCrae, York, for respondent.
In this slip and fall case, the appellant contends that the trial judge erred in not granting her motion for a directed verdict. We agree and reverse.
Appellant agreed to let her niece and nephew have a surprise party for their father at her house. Respondent, one of the guests at the party, fell from the top of the back steps. The brick steps are approximately three and a half feet high and do not have a barrier or railing on either side. Because there is no landing at the top of the steps, it is impossible to stand on the top step and open the back door. Rather than stepping back one or two steps, respondent tried to make room for the door to open by moving to the left side of the steps. She moved too far to the left and consequently fell off the steps. The jury returned a $25,000 verdict for the respondent.
Since this is a law case which was tried by a jury, we must uphold the verdict if there is any evidence which reasonably supports it. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). Additionally, in passing on motions by defendants for nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment non obstante veredicto, and a new trial, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Skipper v. Hartley, 242 S.C. 221, 130 S.E.2d 486 (1963).
The only question we must decide in this appeal is whether there is any evidence to reasonably support the jury's finding that the appellant was negligent. The appellant must have breached her duty of care to the respondent in order to be negligent. We, therefore, must determine what duty of care the appellant owed to the respondent.
The United States District Court, in applying South Carolina law, has set forth the duty a landowner owes to a social guest.
A social guest is a licensee. A licensee is a person who is privileged to enter upon land by virtue of the possessor's consent. The possessor is under no obligation to exercise care to make the premises safe for his reception, and is under no duty toward him except:
(a) To use reasonable care to discover him and avoid injury to him in carrying on activities upon the land.
(b) To use reasonable care to warn him of any concealed dangerous conditions or activities which are known to the possessor, or of any change in the condition of the premises which may be dangerous to him, and which he may reasonably be expected to discover.
Frankel v. Kurtz, 239 F.Supp. 713, 717 (W.D.S.C. 1965)(emphasis added). The respondent in the instant case was clearly a licensee. If we determine that the danger posed by the steps was not hidden or concealed, then res...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singleton v. Sherer
...A licensee is a person who is privileged to enter or remain upon land by virtue of the possessor's consent. Neil v. Byrum, 288 S.C. 472, 473, 343 S.E.2d 615, 616 (1986). When a licensee enters onto the property of another, the primary benefit is to the licensee, not the property owner. Hoov......
-
Sims v. Giles
...Licensees A licensee is a person who is privileged to enter or remain upon land by virtue of the possessor's consent. Neil v. Byrum, 288 S.C. 472, 343 S.E.2d 615 (1986); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 330 (1965). Cf. Bryant v. City of North Charleston, 304 S.C. 123, 403 S.E.2d 159 (Ct.App.......
-
Lucas v. Sysco Columbia LLC
...a duty to discover and avoid the danger." Hackworth v. United States, 366 F.Supp.2d 326, 330 (D.S.C. 2005) (citing, Neil v. Byrum, 288 S.C. 472, 343 S.E.2d 615, 616 (1986)). In Hackworth the court granted summary judgment to the Defendant, finding that a puddle of water on the floor was an ......
-
Roe v. Bibby
...the condition of the premises which may be dangerous to him, and which he may reasonably be expected to discover.Neil v. Byrum, 288 S.C. 472, 473, 343 S.E.2d 615, 616 (1986) (internal citation omitted). Although negligence actions under a premises liability theory typically pertain to dange......
-
The Big Catch Navigating South Carolina's Recreational Use Statute
...2007). [25] See, e.g., Smiley v. Southern Ry. Co., 184 S.C. 130, 191 S.E. 895 (1936). [26] Harris, 391 S.C. at 523 (quoting Neil v. Byrum, 288 S.C. 472, 473 (1986)). [27] Id. (quoting Goode v. St. Stephens United Methodist Church, 329 S.C. 433, 441 (Ct. App. 1997)). [28] Id. (quoting Goode,......