Find Legal Information

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

David R. Underwood, Appellant,

v.

Laurine H. Coponen, Carolyn T. Webb, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ansel B. Taylor, and County of Greenville, Defendants,

Of Whom Carolyn T. Webb, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ansel B. Taylor is the Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County
 John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No.  4067
Submitted November 1, 2005 – Filed January 9, 2006

AFFIRMED

William H. Ehlies, II, of Greenville, for Appellant.

John P. Riordan and Zandra L. Johnson, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

SHORT, J.:  Laurine Coponen ran through a stop sign at an intersection and collided with David Underwood’s car.  Underwood brought an action against Carolyn Webb, the personal representative of Ansel Taylor’s estate, alleging Taylor was negligent in failing to trim a tree located on his property, thereby contributing to the accident.  The trial court granted Webb’s motion for summary judgment, which Underwood now appeals.  We affirm.[1]

FACTS

On May 4, 2002, Underwood was driving on Ansel School Road in Greenville County when Coponen ran through a stop sign at the intersection of Ansel School Road and Sharon Drive and collided with Underwood’s car.  Coponen testified that she did not see the stop sign because the limbs of a tree located on Taylor’s property were partially blocking the sign.  The respondent, Webb, is the personal representative of Taylor’s estate.  Taylor’s wife testified that Taylor was aware the tree’s limbs could obscure the stop sign and occasionally trimmed the tree to prevent it from doing so.  Coponen testified that she had driven on Sharon Drive before; however, she also testified that she was not looking for a stop sign because she mistakenly thought she was on another road that did not have stop signs. 

Underwood initially brought this action solely against Coponen, alleging that she was liable for his injuries from the collision because she was negligent in running the stop sign.  However, on October 23, 2003, Underwood amended his complaint to include both Webb and Greenville County as additional defendants, alleging that either or both were negligent in failing to trim the tree located on Taylor’s property, thereby contributing to the accident.  Webb filed a motion for summary judgment.  After a hearing on November 2, 2004, the trial judge granted Webb’s motion.  A settlement was reached between Underwood and the other defendants.  Underwood now appeals. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, we apply the same standard which governs the trial court under Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002).  “When determining if any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”  Id. at 494-495, 567 S.E.2d at 860.  “If triable issues exist, those issues must go to the jury.”  Nelson v. Charleston County Parks & Recreation Comm’n, 362 S.C. 1, 5, 605 S.E.2d 744, 746 (Ct. App. 2004).

LAW/ANALYSIS