Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialverdictduty of care
plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceappealtrialverdictmotionduty of care

Related Cases

Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 392 N.E.2d 1, 29 Ill.Dec. 444
View Case »
Randall v. Shelton, 293 S.W.2d 559
View Case »
Dobrovolny v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Neb. 86, 793 N.W.2d 445
View Case »
Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 22 N.Y.3d 439, 5 N.E.3d 11, 982 N.Y.S.2d 40, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,295, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08372
View Case »
Kilian v. Doubleday & Co., 367 Pa. 117, 79 A.2d 657
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 415 S.C. 580, 784 S.E.2d 670

Facts

On June 20, 2006, Alice Hancock waited in her vehicle while her sister, Donna Beckham, attempted to shoplift from Wal-Mart. After Beckham exited the store without the stolen items, security guard Derrick Jones pursued them in his truck, blocking their vehicle as they attempted to leave. Hancock drove away, with Jones following, and approximately two miles later, Hancock's vehicle crashed, resulting in her death. The estate of Hancock filed a negligence claim against Wal-Mart, USSA, and Jones, alleging that their actions contributed to the accident.

The following facts are undisputed. On June 20, 2006, Alice Hancock waited in her vehicle in the parking lot of Wal–Mart while her sister, Donna Beckham, attempted to shoplift several articles of clothing.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting a directed verdict for Wal-Mart on the grounds of negligence and proximate cause?

Petitioner appeals the court of appeals' decision affirming the trial court's grant of Wal–Mart's motion for a directed verdict on Petitioner's negligence claim.

Rule

To prove negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.

To prove a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury or damages.

Analysis

The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that Wal-Mart was negligent, as employees instructed Jones to pursue Hancock and obtain her license plate number, which violated Wal-Mart's own policies. The court also noted that the actions of Jones were foreseeable consequences of Wal-Mart's instructions, thus establishing a potential proximate cause linking Wal-Mart's negligence to the accident.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—Petitioner—we find that there is evidence from which a jury could determine that Wal–Mart was negligent, and that its negligence proximately caused the injuries in this case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for a new trial, stating that the issues of Wal-Mart's negligence and proximate cause should have been submitted to the jury.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court should have submitted to the jury the issues of Wal–Mart's negligence and proximate cause, and we remand for a new trial as to all of the defendants.

Who won?

The estate of Alice Hancock prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the court found that there were factual issues regarding Wal-Mart's negligence that warranted a new trial.

We therefore reverse the court of appeals' decision and remand for a new trial as to all defendants.

You must be