Bootle v. Labrasca, Inc.

177 S.E.2d 544, 255 S.C. 134, 1970 S.C. LEXIS 171
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 4, 1970
Docket19118
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 S.E.2d 544 (Bootle v. Labrasca, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bootle v. Labrasca, Inc., 177 S.E.2d 544, 255 S.C. 134, 1970 S.C. LEXIS 171 (S.C. 1970).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was injured in a fall in a restaurant operated by the defendant at the corner of King and Cleveland Streets in the City of Charleston. The jury awarded her a verdict for $18,500.00 actual damages, and defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was denied by the court. This is an appeal by defendant from the denial of its motion.

The defendant urges that the evidence was insufficient to establish any negligence on its part as a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and, alternatively, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. These issues are not properly before us because the record fails to establish that they were presented to the trial [136]*136judge by motion for a directed verdict. Absent such a motion at the appropriate stage of the trial, a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto will not lie. We have, nevertheless, carefully examined the record in the light of the briefs and the arguments of counsel, and are convinced that the grounds of appeal urged by defendant are without merit. The evidence raised jury issues as to whether the defendant negligently failed to adequately light or otherwise give warning of a step down between adjacent dining areas, which caused plaintiff’s fall, and as to whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent in failing to detect the condition and to save herself from harm.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hall v. Palmetto Enterprises II, Inc.
317 S.E.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)
Hall v. PALMETTO ENTR. II, INC., OF CLINTON
317 S.E.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 S.E.2d 544, 255 S.C. 134, 1970 S.C. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bootle-v-labrasca-inc-sc-1970.