 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BROOKS v. NORTHWOOD LITTLE LEAGUE6/9/1997
This is a negligence case. Tommie C. Brooks appeals from the trial judge's grant of summary judgment in favor of Northwood Little League, Inc., Northwood Middle School, and the Greenville County School District, Respondents. Brooks argues the judge erred in applying South Carolina's Recreational Use Statute to bar her claim and finding she was a licensee. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
In May 1993, Brooks injured her ankle on the grounds of Northwood Middle School while attending her granddaughter's Little League T-ball game. She incurred approximately $9,000 in medical expenses as a result of her accident. Brooks was returning to the bleachers from a concession stand where she had purchased refreshments when she fell and twisted her ankle. She asserts she stepped into a "hole" or "trench." She stated she failed to notice it because grass growth obscured the depression from view. On her way to the concession stand, she had walked over the same area without incident.
After the accident, Brooks had surgery to repair the damage and missed six weeks of work. She initiated this lawsuit in July 1994. Following discovery, the Respondents moved for summary judgment. The trial judge granted their motions, holding the Recreational Use Statute barred Brooks' claims. He also held that even if the Recreational Use Statute did not apply, Brooks qualified as a licensee and was thus not entitled to recover from the Respondents for her injuries.
DISCUSSION
Brooks argues the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Respondents. First, she asserts
Summary judgment is appropriate where it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56 (c), SCRCP; Rakestraw v. South Carolina Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp., 323 S.C. 227, 229, 473 S.E.2d 890, 892 (Ct. App. 1996). When there is no dispute as to evidentiary facts, but only as to the inferences to be drawn from them, summary judgment should be denied. Id. However, when the evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable interpretation, summary judgment may be granted. See Clyburn v. Sumter County Sch. Dist. No. 17, 317 S.C. 50, 52, 451 S.E.2d 885, 887-88 (1994).
I.
In 1962, our legislature passed the Limitation on Liability of Landowners Act, commonly known as the Recreational Use Statute, to encourage landowners to make land and water areas available to the public. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-3-10 to 27-3-70 (1991). Its provisions shield landowners from liability to "persons who have sought and obtained [their] permission to use [their land] for recreational purposes." S.C. Code Ann. § 27-3-30. Landowners owe "no duty of care to keep the premises safe" for recreational users and need not "give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity" on the property. Id. In tandem with this grant of immunity, the legislature broadly defined "recreational purpose" as follows:
"Recreational purpose" includes, but is not limited
to, any of the following, or any combination thereof:
hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping,
picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study,
water skiing, summer and winter sports and viewing or
enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or
scientific sites.
S.C. Code Ann. § 27-3-20 (c) (emphasis added).
The immunity afforded by section 27-3-30 is not absolute. Two exceptions exist. First, landowners may not claim immunity
Our research reveals no South Carolina case on point. Courts in other states examining similar issues have reached conflicting results, despite the straightforwar
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|