Lord v. D&J Enterprises, Inc.

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

Ida Lord, Appellant,

v.

D&J Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Cash on the Spot,
Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002361

Appeal From York County
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-119
Submitted February 1, 2018 – Filed March 21, 2018

AFFIRMED

Robert J. Reeves, of Law Offices of Robert J. Reeves,
P.C., of Fort Mill, and Arthur Kerr Aiken, of Aiken &
Hightower, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Leland B. Greeley, of Leland B. Greeley, PA, of Rock
Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ida Lord appeals a circuit court order granting D&J Enterprises'
motion for a directed verdict on Lord's negligence action. On appeal, Lord argues
the circuit court erred in (1) excluding the testimony of her expert because he was
better qualified than the average juror and provided reliable testimony and (2)
granting D&J's motion for a directed verdict because the decision was based on a
lack of evidence of breach of duty, which Lord claims her expert would have
provided. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court properly refused to qualify Lord's expert and
excluded his testimony: Pope v. Heritage Cmtys., Inc., 395 S.C. 404, 423, 717
S.E.2d 765, 775 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The qualification of an expert witness and the
admissibility of his or her opinion are matters within the sound discretion of the
[circuit] court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion
and a showing of prejudice."); Watson v. Ford Motor Co., 389 S.C. 434, 445, 699
S.E.2d 169, 175 (2010) ("The admission of expert testimony is governed by Rule
702, SCRE, which provides: 'If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise.'"); Pope, 395 S.C. at 424, 717 S.E.2d at 775 ("Rule 702[, SCRE,]
applies to both scientific and nonscientific evidence."); id. ("[W]hether an expert's
testimony is scientific or nonscientific, the [circuit] court has a gatekeeping role
with respect to all evidence sought to be admitted under Rule 702[, SCRE].");
Watson, 389 S.C. at 446, 699 S.E.2d at 175 ("[I]n executing its gatekeeping duties,
the [circuit] court must make three key preliminary findings which are fundamental
to Rule 702[, SCRE,] before the jury may consider expert testimony. First, the
[circuit] court must find that the subject matter is beyond the ordinary knowledge
of the jury, thus requiring an expert to explain the matter to the jury. Next, while
the expert need not be a specialist in the particular branch of the field, the [circuit]
court must find that the proffered expert has indeed acquired the requisite
knowledge and skill to qualify as an expert in the particular subject matter.
Finally, the [circuit] court must evaluate the substance of the testimony and
determine whether it is reliable." (citations omitted)); Graves v. CAS Med. Sys.,
Inc., 401 S.C. 63, 75, 735 S.E.2d 650, 656 (2012) ("[T]his evidence must be
evaluated on an ad hoc basis.").
2. As to whether the circuit court properly granted D&J's motion for a directed
verdict: Rule 50(a), SCRCP ("When upon a trial the case presents only questions
of law the [circuit court] may direct a verdict."); Chakrabarti v. City of
Orangeburg, 403 S.C. 308, 313, 743 S.E.2d 109, 112 (Ct. App. 2013) ("A directed
verdict motion is properly granted if the evidence as a whole is susceptible of only
one reasonable inference."); Erickson v. Jones St. Publishers, LLC., 368 S.C. 444,
463, 629 S.E.2d 653, 663 (2006) ("The appellate court must determine whether a
verdict for a party opposing the motion would be reasonably possible under the
facts as liberally construed in his favor."); Lord v. D & J Enters., Inc., 407 S.C.
544, 558, 757 S.E.2d 695, 702 (2014) ("To prevail on a negligence claim, a
plaintiff must establish duty, breach, causation, and damages."); Summers v.
Harrison Constr., 298 S.C. 451, 455, 381 S.E.2d 493, 495 (Ct. App. 1989) ("If any
of these elements is absent a negligence claim is not stated."); Snow v. City of
Columbia, 305 S.C. 544, 555 n.7, 409 S.E.2d 797, 803 n.7 (Ct. App. 1991) ("In an
action for negligence, the plaintiff must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence
that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care."); Bass v. Gopal, Inc., 395 S.C.
129, 135, 716 S.E.2d 910, 913 (2011) ("[A] business owner has a duty to take
reasonable action to protect its invitees against the foreseeable risk of physical
harm."); id. at 141, 716 S.E.2d at 917 ("[I]t is difficult to imagine an instance
where a business would be required to employ costly security guards in the
absence of evidence of prior crimes on the premises.").

AFFIRMED. 1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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