July 27, 2007
Congratulations to Stephanie G. Flynn and Phillip E. Reeves on their recent victory in the South Carolina Court of Appeals. In an opinion issued by the Court of Appeals on June 28th in the case of Shelton v. LS&K, Inc., the Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, which had granted summary judgment to the defendant.
The case involved a pedestrian versus automobile accident that resulted in serious and permanent injuries to the pedestrian. The accident occurred on May 7, 2004 in front of a Burger King franchise owned and operated by the defendant, LS&K, Inc. Just before the accident, the plaintiff had been walking on a sidewalk in front of the Burger King, which intersected with the driveway exit for cars entering and exiting the Burger King parking lot. Just before the accident, the driver of a minivan was preparing to leave the Burger King parking lot and stopped at the exit to wait for traffic. Unbeknownst to the driver, the plaintiff was walking along the sidewalk and walked directly into the path of the minivan. After traffic cleared, the driver proceeded to move forward to make a right-hand turn and struck the plaintiff.
The plaintiff pursued a complaint against LS&K on the grounds that a Bradford Pear tree located near the exit of the Burger King Parking lot prevented the driver and plaintiff from seeing each other in time to prevent the accident. The lower court granted LS&K's motion for summary judgment in the case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish, through credible expert testimony, that LS&K had defectively designed its parking lot or landscaping. The court refused to allow a jury to speculate regarding how the landscaping or parking lot should have been designed or at what distances a pedestrian or driver should be afforded clear views of each other. The court compared the tree to any other object that may be encountered by drivers and pedestrians on the roadway and which could potentially obstruct their views, such as signs, poles or even buildings.
The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, agreed with the ruling made by the lower court on the grounds that LS&K did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and did not breach any duty of care owed to her. In that regard, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that LS&K owed a duty to the plaintiff to prevent the obstruction caused by the Bradford pear tree located on LS&K's property, failed to establish any evidence regarding how far pedestrians and drivers should be afforded unobstructed views at a parking lot exit (or that the views in this case were insufficient), and held that landowners generally do not owe a duty to warn others of an open and obvious condition. Additionally, the Court ruled that the plaintiff had framed her case as one of negligent design and construction of the parking lot and placement of the tree, but failed to offer expert testimony to establish the standard of care for the design and construction of the parking lot and how LS&K deviated from that standard of care.
This decision, beneficial to landowners, will ensure that landowners are not strapped with the heavy and unreasonable burden to prevent any trees, shrubs or other aesthetic landscaping from obstructing anyone's view at any time and that pedestrians and drivers appropriately maintain responsibility for their own safety to ensure that their paths are clear before proceeding.
|
