Lisa Weston v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

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

Lisa Weston and Brandon Weston, Appellants,

v.

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP d/b/a Wal-Mart Store #1286,
John Doe, Danica Adams and the City of Columbia,
Defendants,

Of which Wal-Mart Stores East, LP d/b/a Wal-Mart Store
#1286 and Danica Adams are the Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001427

Appeal From Richland County
William A. McKinnon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-291
Submitted April 1, 2025 – Filed August 13, 2025

AFFIRMED

Paige B. George and Barry B. George, both of Barry B.
George, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Stephen Michael Foster, of Lewis, Blain, Roberts, &
Boyd, LLC, and Robert Canna Blain, of Collins & Lacy,
PC, both of Columbia, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Lisa Weston and Brandon Weston (collectively, the Westons)
appeal the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart
Stores East, LP d/b/a Wal-Mart Store #1286 (Wal-Mart) and Danica Adams
(collectively, Respondents). On appeal, the Westons argue the circuit court erred
by granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents because the Westons
established a genuine issue of material fact (1) from which a reasonable jury could
find they met their burden of proving the elements of defamation, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligence and (2) as to
whether there was an agency relationship between a law enforcement officer with
the Columbia Police Department and Wal-Mart. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.

The Westons have failed to provide this court with a sufficient record from which
it could conduct an intelligent review. See Rule 210(h), SCACR ("Except as
provided by Rule 212 and Rule 208(b)(1)(C) and (2)[ of the South Carolina
Appellate Court Rules] the appellate court will not consider any fact which does
not appear in the Record on Appeal."); Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines E., 281 S.C.
442, 444, 316 S.E.2d 368, 369 (1984) ("The appealing party has the burden of
furnishing a sufficient record from which this court can make an intelligent
review."); Germain v. Nichol, 278 S.C. 508, 509, 299 S.E.2d 335, 335 (1983)
("[An a]ppellant has the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record
upon which this Court can make its decision."). The record on appeal contains
portions of depositions referencing law enforcement's body-worn camera footage,
but these deposition excerpts are provided in nonsequential fashion, making it
difficult to follow the lines of questioning and determine which videos are being
discussed. Moreover, the Westons failed to respond to this court's letter rejecting
the thumb drives containing this footage.1 Both parties refer to and rely heavily on
the body-worn camera footage in their appellate briefs, and the circuit court relied
on this footage in its decision to grant summary judgment. Without this video
footage, and due to the nonsequential deposition excerpts provided in the record on
appeal, this court is unable to conduct an intelligent review of the circuit court's
findings. Cf. Woodson v. DLI Props., LLC, 406 S.C. 517, 527, 753 S.E.2d 428,
433 (2014) (holding the appellant provided a sufficient record for appellate review
from a grant of summary judgment when the record on appeal provided the
requisite evidentiary material to conduct a review of the depositions,

1
This court responded by letter to the Westons' filing advising it could not accept
the thumb drives as provided and directing them to Rule 262(a)(3) of the South
Carolina Appellate Court Rules for guidance.
interrogatories, affidavits, and other evidentiary materials provided by the parties
to the circuit court). Therefore, we affirm the circuit court's order.

AFFIRMED. 2

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.