Stewart v. Green Apple, LLC

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

Lindsey Stewart, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Shaun Robert Moore, Appellant,

v.

Green Apple, LLC, doing business as Applebee's,
John/Jane Doe, Manager, and Stabler L. Inabinet,
Defendants,

Of which Green Apple, LLC, d/b/a Applebee's is the
Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001312

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Maite Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-232
Submitted November 1, 2018 – Filed June 26, 2019

AFFIRMED

Kathleen Chewning Barnes, of Barnes Law Firm, LLC,
of Hampton; Shane Morris Burroughs, of Lanier &
Burroughs, LLC, of Orangeburg; and Justin Tyler
Bamberg, of Bamberg Legal, LLC, of Bamberg, all for
Appellant.
Drew Hamilton Butler, of Richardson Plowden &
Robinson, PA, of Mount Pleasant; and Michelle Parsons
Kelley and Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, both of
Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, all
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on
Stewart's general negligence cause of action: Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing
summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 332 S.C.
90, 92, 504 S.E.2d 318, 319-20 (1998) ("We . . . hold that public policy is not
served by allowing the intoxicated adult patron to maintain a suit for injuries which
result from his own conduct."); Lydia v. Horton, 355 S.C. 36, 42-43, 583 S.E.2d
750, 754 (2003) (extending the public policy considerations in Tobias to a first
party negligent entrustment cause of action, noting the essence of both cases was
that the plaintiff, who was voluntarily intoxicated when the accident occurred, was
attempting to deflect the responsibility that should be imposed upon himself
towards another); Donze v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 420 S.C. 8, 21-22, 800 S.E.2d 479,
485-86 (2017) (declining to extend Tobias and Lydia to bar intoxicated plaintiffs
from bringing strict liability or breach of warranty actions but continuing to
recognize that public policy bars an intoxicated adult from bringing a first party
claim based on "the common law doctrines of negligence and negligent
entrustment").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in ruling on the merits of the summary
judgment motion because discovery was incomplete: Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C.
58, 71, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439-40 (2003) (holding when a party claims summary
judgment is premature because he has not been provided a full and fair opportunity
to conduct discovery, he must advance a good reason why the time was insufficient
under the facts of the case and demonstrate why further discovery would uncover
additional relevant evidence likely to create a genuine issue of material fact).
AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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