Wiggins v. ALDI, Inc. ( 2021 )

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
Vanessa Wiggins, Appellant,
v.
ALDI, Inc., Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2019-000152
Appeal From Richland County
Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-442
Submitted October 1, 2021 – Filed December 15, 2021
AFFIRMED
Kelly Louise Burnside, of Burnside Law Firm, LLC, of
West Columbia, and Frank Anthony Barton, of
Lexington, for Appellant.
Helen F. Hiser, of Mount Pleasant, and Brett Harris
Bayne, of Columbia, both of McAngus Goudelock &
Courie, LLC, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this negligence action, Appellant Vanessa Wiggins challenges
both the denial of her motion to dismiss without prejudice and the circuit court's
order directing a verdict for Respondent ALDI, Inc. Appellant argues the circuit
court did not have the discretion to deny her motion to dismiss without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), SCRCP, because Respondent failed to show "legal
prejudice." Appellant also argues there was sufficient evidence of Respondent's
creation of a dangerous condition in its grocery store to withstand a directed verdict
for Respondent. We affirm.
1. As to whether the circuit court erred by directing a verdict for Respondent,
there is no evidence that any possible breach of duty could have caused Appellant's
fall. See Wintersteen v. Food Lion, Inc., 344 S.C. 32, 35, 542 S.E.2d 728, 729 (2001)
("To recover damages for injuries caused by a dangerous or defective condition on
a storekeeper's premises, the plaintiff must show either (1) that the injury was caused
by a specific act of the defendant [that] created the dangerous condition; or (2) that
the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and
failed to remedy it."); Easterling v. Burger King Corp., 416 S.C. 437, 446, 786
S.E.2d 443, 448 (Ct. App. 2016) (holding that a plaintiff in a negligence action must
show that the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injury). Respondent's
surveillance video indicates that Appellant saw Respondent's cashier walking away
with the first chair she had retrieved for Appellant before Appellant even attempted
to sit down in the second chair. We do not view the apparent conflict between the
video's contents and the testimony of Appellant's witnesses as genuine. Cf. Main v.
Corley, 281 S.C. 525, 526–27, 316 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1984) ("A motion for summary
judgment is akin to a motion for a directed verdict. In each instance, one party must
lose as a matter of law. A motion for a directed verdict speaks in terms of 'only one
reasonable inference.' A motion for a summary judgment speaks in terms of 'no
genuine issue as to material facts.' It is not sufficient that one create an inference
[that] is not reasonable. Similarly, it is not sufficient that one create an issue of fact
that is not genuine. . . . The judge is not required to single out some one morsel of
evidence and attach to it great significance when patently the evidence is introduced
solely in a vain attempt to create an issue of fact that is not genuine."). Therefore,
the circuit court properly granted a directed verdict to Respondent. See Fletcher v.
Med. Univ. of S.C., 390 S.C. 458, 462, 702 S.E.2d 372, 374 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A
directed verdict should be granted where the evidence raises no issue for the jury as
to the defendant's liability." (quoting Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Reg'l Hosp., Inc.,
364 S.C. 158, 163, 612 S.E.2d 695, 697 (2005))); id. ("On review, an appellate court
will affirm the granting of a directed verdict in favor of the defendant when there is
no evidence on any one element of the alleged cause of action.").
2. As to whether the circuit court erred by denying Appellant's motion to dismiss
without prejudice, any possible error was harmless. See Judy v. Judy, 384 S.C. 634,
646, 682 S.E.2d 836, 842 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Error is harmless where it could not
reasonably have affected the result of the trial."); id. ("Generally, appellate courts
will not set aside judgments due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result.").
Had the circuit court granted the motion, any evidence subsequently generated by
Appellant for a future trial could not overcome the facts as shown by the surveillance
video, which belie Appellant's theory of liability, i.e., that the failure of Respondent's
cashier to use due care caused her fall.
AFFIRMED. 1
HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.