Crawford v. Food Lion

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 16, 2011
• Docket: 2011-UP-066
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Kisha Crawford, Appellant,

v.

Food Lion, LLC, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-066 
Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed February 16, 2011

---

AFFIRMED

---

Pheobe Annette Clark, of Florence, for Appellant.

Wilson S. Sheldon, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kisha Crawford appeals the trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of Food Lion, LLC, in her slip and fall personal injury action.  On appeal, Crawford argues the trial court erred in (1) directing the verdict when Crawford submitted evidence that the foreign substance was on the floor long enough to put Food Lion on notice, (2) relying on a videotape which was not admitted into evidence when issuing a directed verdict, and (3) excluding Crawford's estimates of future surgical costs.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:   

1. As to whether the trial court erred in directing the verdict:  Wintersteen v. Food Lion, Inc., 344 S.C. 32, 36 n.1, 542 S.E.2d 728, 730 n.1 (2001) (noting constructive notice is generally established through evidence the foreign substance was on the floor for a sufficient length of time that the storekeeper should have discovered and removed it); Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,  314 S.C. 248, 250, 442 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1994) ("To avoid a directed verdict in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the storekeeper was responsible for creating the hazard which caused the fall or had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the hazard."). 

2. As to whether the trial court erred in relying on a videotape not admitted into evidence when issuing a directed verdict:  Harkins v. Greenville Cnty., 340 S.C. 606, 620, 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000) (stating an issue not ruled upon by the trial judge is not preserved for appeal); I’On, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 421, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (stating parties should raise all necessary issues and arguments to trial court and attempt to obtain a ruling).  

3. As to whether the trial court erred in excluding Crawford's estimates of future surgical costs:  Fields v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. of Orangeburg, 363 S.C. 19, 25-26, 609 S.E.2d 506, 509 (2005) (holding the admission or exclusion of evidence in general is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evidentiary support); State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 331, 652 S.E.2d 409, 424 (Ct. App. 2007) ("A business record without evidence about the manner in which it is prepared or the source of its information does not meet the requirements in either [S.C. Code] section 19-5-510 or Rule 803(6), SCRE [Hearsay Exceptions]."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.