April Jones v. Tim Ringer

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

April Jones, Respondent,

v.

Tim Ringer, individually and as employee/agent of Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. d/b/a Wal-Mart Store #630, Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., Defendants,

of which Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores
East, L.P. are the Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000303

Appeal From Florence County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 6125
Heard May 7, 2025 – Filed November 26, 2025

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Miles Edward Coleman and Abigail Louise Wood, of
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of
Greenville; Robert Canna Blain, of Collins & Lacy, PC,
of Columbia; and Nashiba F. Boyd, of Orangeburg, all
for Appellants.

George M. Hearn, Jr., of Hearn & Hearn, PA, of
Conway; Lane Douglas Jefferies, Eric Marc Poulin and
Roy T. Willey, IV, all of Poulin, Willey, Anastopoulo,
LLC, of Charleston; Robert Brian Critzer, of Columbia,
and Kaye Gorenflo Hearn, of Conway, both of Wyche,
PA, all for Respondent.

WILLIAMS, C.J.: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
(collectively, Wal-Mart) appeal a jury verdict awarded to April Jones. Wal-Mart
argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial because Jones
presented inadmissible photographs to the jury during her opening argument and
the trial court refused to offer a curative instruction. We agree.

"The trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial absolute is reviewed by the
appellate court for abuse of discretion." Click Props., LLC v. Thomas SC Props.,
LLC, 445 S.C. 468, 491–92, 914 S.E.2d 488, 500 (Ct. App. 2025). "In deciding
whether to assess error to a court's denial of a motion for a new trial, we must
consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party." Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389, 405,
477 S.E.2d 715, 723 (Ct. App. 1996).

In 2018, Jones sued Wal-Mart for negligence, alleging she stepped on a nail in the
store in 2015, which caused her to eventually have an above-the-knee amputation.
In 2019—four years after the incident—Jones's counsel and associates entered
Wal-Mart, without scheduling a site inspection pursuant to Rule 34 of the South
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure,1 and took pictures and video. The group was
seen with gloves and a hammer. The photos taken by the group depict nails in
wooden pallets on the sales floor of Wal-Mart, a broken pallet, and one photo
shows a nail placed on the floor next to a wooden pallet. Also, while at the store,
Jones's counsel spoke to a named defendant in the case, Tim Ringer.

Wal-Mart filed a motion in limine to exclude the photos. Wal-Mart argued the
photos were not relevant or admissible under Rules 401 and 403 of the South
Carolina Rules of Evidence. The trial court partially granted the motion, ruling the
photos of the broken pallet were inadmissible, but it denied the motion as to any

1
See Rule 34, SCRCP ("Any party may serve on any other party a request . . . to
permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of
the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection and
measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any
designated object or operation thereon . . . .").
photos used to show Wal-Mart's alleged failure to comply with the standards from
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, the trial court
specified that any photos admitted during trial would be accompanied by a limiting
instruction.

During opening arguments, Jones's counsel showed all of the photos to the jury
without introducing them into evidence. Wal-Mart objected. The trial court
sustained the objection and ruled the photos could not be shown during opening
arguments; however, it declined Wal-Mart's request for a curative instruction.

We hold the trial court erred in denying Wal-Mart's motion for a new trial because
Jones's counsel improperly showed the jury inadmissible photographs. The photos
were taken four years after Jones's alleged injury and depicted damaged pallets and
nails that were not proven to be of the same type, in the same condition, or even
present on the day of the injury. Jones presented no evidence to demonstrate that
the condition of the pallets in the photos was the same at the time of Jones's alleged
injury. In fact, video of the aisle on the date of injury shows the floor was clean
and free of debris from pallets. Furthermore, the photos were not only presented to
demonstrate that Wal-Mart's pallets were non-compliant with ANSI standards as
originally intended by Jones and approved by the trial court. Rather, Jones also
used the photos to assert Wal-Mart's pallets were in that damaged condition at the
time of the incident and continued to endanger customers in the years following the
accident. Thus, we find the photos are irrelevant. See Rule 401, SCRE ("'Relevant
evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence."). Furthermore, we find the
photographs are clearly prejudicial and prohibited by Rule 403, SCRE. See Rule
403 ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or
needless presentation of cumulative evidence.").

Moreover, the trial court's refusal to issue a curative instruction upon Wal-Mart's
request was error resulting in an abuse of discretion. During pretrial motions, the
court properly ruled the photos inadmissible and explained that if the photos were
introduced, a limiting instruction would follow. Immediately following the
presentation of the photos to the jury, Wal-Mart timely objected and requested a
curative instruction, which the court denied. The only remedy available to
Wal-Mart for the presentation of these photos was a curative instruction.
Wal-Mart made the request pursuant to the rules of evidence concerning relevance.
It is clear the photos served no purpose other than to mislead the jury.
Furthermore, without a curative instruction, the jury was left to consider the
photographs with whatever weight they deemed necessary. See Kunst v. Loree,
424 S.C. 24, 46, 817 S.E.2d 295, 306 (Ct. App. 2018) ("The jury maintains
discretion, as reviewed by the circuit court, in awarding actual and punitive
damages."). This is reversible error. See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 404, 663
S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision
regarding jury instructions unless the trial court committed an abuse of
discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is
based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence."); Fairchild v. S.C.
Dep't of Transp., 398 S.C. 90, 104, 727 S.E.2d 407, 414 (2012) ("Where a request
to charge is timely made and involves a controlling legal principle, a refusal by the
trial judge to charge the request constitutes reversible error." (quoting Ross v.
Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 437, 532 S.E.2d 612, 617 (Ct. App. 2000))); id. ("To warrant
reversal, the refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and
prejudicial.").

Accordingly, the jury's verdict awarded to Jones is

REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for a new trial.2

GEATHERS and TURNER, JJ., concur.

2
Because our above holdings are dispositive, we decline to address the remaining
issues on appeal. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C.
598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not address
remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive).