Vatrick v. SC Federal Credit Union

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Melva Vatick,        Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Federal Credit Union,        Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County
Jackson V. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-191
Submitted March 8, 2004 Filed March 22, 2004

AFFIRMED

Reese I. Joye and J. Craig Smith, of N. Charleston; Stephen L. Brown, of Charleston; for Appellant.

Andrea St. Amand and Richard A. Farrier, Jr., of Charleston; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Melva Vatick filed a negligence suit against South Carolina Federal Credit Union for damages incurred when she fell after using Credit Union's automatic teller machine.  At the close of Vatick's case, the trial court granted Credit Union's motion for a directed verdict.  Vatick appeals.  We affirm. [1]

FACTS

Vatick, a customer of Credit Union, routinely used its automatic teller machine (ATM).  Vatick testified that she always parked her car in front of the building and walked to the ATM, which included climbing one step from the pathway to the ATM enclosure.  Vatick testified she would then withdraw money from the ATM and immediately count it.  

On the day in question, Vatick drove to Credit Union, accompanied by her nephew.  Due to construction outside of Credit Union's building, Vatick was forced to park on the right side of the building, in a space where she never parked before. [2]   Vatick parked the car and walked over to the ATM.  Vatick testified that she walked through the construction site along a path that included two steps in order to reach the ATM.  Vatick stated that she saw red cones in the construction area and agreed with defense counsel's contention that such cones generally indicated that one should "proceed with caution."  However, Vatick testified there were no warning signs, handrailings, or personnel from Credit Union present at the site to warn her to watch her step.   

While Vatick stated the path through the construction site was "narrow," Vatick did not require her nephew's assistance to reach the ATM.  In fact, Vatick successfully navigated the parking lot, the temporary path, and the two unfamiliar steps up to the ATM.  Vatick testified the steps to the ATM were not obstructed.  After Vatick used the ATM, she began to count her money.  She testified that she was "intrigued" by the design of the new twenty-dollar bill, and began to walk back to her car while looking at the bill.  Vatick fell down the two steps on the temporary path and was injured.  She filed a complaint alleging Credit Union was "negligent, reckless, and breached the duties" owed to her. 

At the close of Vatick's case, Credit Union moved for a directed verdict.  The trial judge granted the motion.  Though Vatick filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), SCRCP, it was denied. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In deciding whether to grant or deny a directed verdict motion, the trial court is concerned only with the existence or non-existence of evidence."  Sims v. Giles, 343 S.C. 708, 714, 541 S.E.2d 857, 861 (Ct. App. 2001).  This court can reverse the trial court only when there is no evidence to support the ruling below.  Sabb v. South Carolina State Univ., 350 S.C. 416, 427, 567 S.E.2d 231, 236 (2002).

LAW/ANALYSIS

Vatick argues the trial court erred in granting Credit Union's motion for a directed verdict.  We do not agree.