Joye v. Better Brands ( 2012 )

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

Judy M. Joye, Appellant,

v.

Better Brands, Inc. & Worsley Companies, Defendants,

Of Whom Worsley Companies is the Respondent.

---

Appeal From Georgetown County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-265
Heard February 13, 2012 – Filed May 2, 2012   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Charles David Barr, of Kingstree, for Appellant.

M. McMullen Taylor, Weston Adams, III, and Helen F. Hiser, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Judy M. Joye appeals the grant of summary judgment to Worsley Companies (Worsley), arguing the circuit court erred because genuine issues of material fact existed and Worsley was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  We affirm. 

We find the trial court did not err in holding no dangerous condition existed.  See Wintersteen v. Food Lion, Inc., 344 S.C. 32, 36, 542 S.E.2d 728, 730 (2001) (stating a storekeeper owes an invitee the duty of exercising reasonable or ordinary care for the invitee's safety and to keep aisles in a reasonably safe condition, but he "is not an insurer of the safety of his customers"). Joye acknowledged the aisle was wide and the crates were lined up with other items.  Furthermore, she admitted nothing obscured her vision and the crates were not hidden by "tablecloths or anything like that."  She even admitted she saw the crates.  At oral argument, Joye acknowledged displays in aisles are not always unreasonably dangerous and was unable to identify any feature that made the Better Brands display distinctive or more dangerous.  Joye failed to set forth any specific facts showing that the display, which sat, visible, in a row of other items separating the aisle, was a dangerous condition.  See Hoard ex rel. Hoard v. Roper Hosp., Inc., 387 S.C. 539, 549, 694 S.E.2d 1, 6 (2010) (stating Rule 56(e), SCRCP, requires that when a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided by the rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings); id. (stating the adverse party's response, including affidavits or as otherwise provided by the rule, must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial).  Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in granting Worsley summary judgment. [1] 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur. 

---

[1]  We need not address any remaining issues.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (providing an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).