Sturkie v. Constance, 1894

Decision Date15 September 1992
Docket NumberNo. 1894,1894
Citation309 S.C. 526,424 S.E.2d 545
PartiesMary Lou STURKIE, Appellant, v. James W. CONSTANCE and Marcia H. Constance, Respondents. . Heard
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals

K. Douglas Thornton, of The Thornton Law Firm, Georgetown, for appellant.

Phillip Luke Hughes, L. Sidney Connor, IV, and Susan Pardue, Myrtle Beach, for respondents.

SHAW, Judge:

Mary Lou Sturkie brought this action against Mr. and Mrs. Constance for injuries she received from a fall in the Constances' home. Following a jury verdict for the Constances, Mrs. Sturkie appeals. We affirm.

The issues before us on appeal are whether the trial judge erred in refusing Mrs. Sturkie's motion for a jury view of the accident scene and whether he erred in admitting into evidence the rug upon which Mrs. Sturkie allegedly slipped in light of the denial of the motion for a jury view.

The record reveals the following. On December 23, 1988, Mrs. Sturkie arrived at Chicora Wood Plantation House, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Constance, in order to clean the house prior to a Christmas party being held by the Constances for those who had helped in the restoration of the home. At that time, Mrs. Sturkie was a self-employed house cleaner and had been cleaning this home twice a week since 1985. Although she was invited to the Christmas party, Mrs. Sturkie arrived early to clean, as it was a regular cleaning day. Mrs. Sturkie testified she was walking through one of the bedrooms when she stepped on the corner of the rug, which slipped, and she fell, injuring herself.

Mrs. Sturkie made a motion for a jury view of the premises where the fall occurred. She further objected to the introduction of the rug absent a jury view arguing the combination of the rug and the hard wood floor was "a critical operative fact." The trial judge denied the motion for the jury view. He further admitted the rug into evidence, but ruled he would not let it be spread out on the carpeted floor and was only letting it in for the purpose of showing the rubber edging on the border as described by Mr. Constance. The trial judge instructed the jury they could view the rug but could not unroll it or conduct any experiments with it.

On appeal, Mrs. Sturkie contends the trial judge erred in denying her motion for a jury view and in admitting the rug into evidence. She argues the jury's inability to view the premises created an "unrealistic impression of the conditions which spawned [her] inju...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT