Richardson v. Piggly Wiggly Central, Inc.
404 S.C. 231
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Richardson slipped on wet concrete outside Piggly Wiggly after rain on Oct 11, 2008, injuring knee and back.
- Richardson sued in magistrate’s court for negligent failure to warn of dangerous condition on sidewalk.
- Trial evidence showed slip occurred outside the store; sidewalk was concrete; inside was tile.
- Magistrate denied a directed verdict; jury found Piggly Wiggly negligent and awarded $3,870.
- Piggly Wiggly’s JNOV motion was denied by the magistrate; circuit court reversed, finding the slip outside did not show an unreasonably dangerous condition; Richardson’s reconsideration was denied; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of negligence to defeat JNOV? | Richardson as invitee deserved duty to keep premises reasonably safe | Piggly Wiggly owed no duty given obvious, known rain condition | No; the court affirmed JNOV for defendant. |
| Did Piggly Wiggly breach any duty by failing to warn about the condition? | There was a latent or unrecognized danger requiring warning | Danger was obvious; no latent defect or duty to warn | No; evidence showed no breach. |
| Did the trial court err in granting JNOV based on standard of review for conflicting evidence? | JNOV should be denied if any reasonable inference supports negligence | No reasonable jury could find negligence given obvious condition | Circuit court correctly granted JNOV. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wimberley v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 252 S.C. 117 (1969) (premises liability for invitees; ordinary care standard)
- Callander v. Charleston Doughnut Corp., 305 S.C. 123 (1991) (obvious dangers vs latent defects; duty limits)
- Meadows v. Heritage Vill. Church & Missionary Fellowship, Inc., 305 S.C. 375 (1991) (natural conditions with obvious peril; no duty to warn)
- Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565 (1998) (standard for JNOV adequacy of evidence; no credibility resolution on review)
- Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1 (Ct.App.2006) (JNOV is renewal of directed verdict; standard on review)
- Elam v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 361 S.C. 9 (2004) (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Parks v. Characters Night Club, 345 S.C. 484 (Ct.App.2001) (appellate review of magistrate findings)
- Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279 (Ct.App.2000) (credibility and conflicts unresolved on appeal)