Priscilla Hammond v. AlliedBarton Security Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-02441-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998902819].. [11-2333]

Appeal: 11-2333

Doc: 29

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2333

PRISCILLA REID HAMMOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:10-cv-02441-JFA)

Submitted:

June 13, 2012

Decided:

July 26, 2012

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Harpootlian, Graham L. Newman, Michael D. Scott,
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant.
Weston Adams, III, Sterling G. Davies, Helen F.
Hiser, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2333

Doc: 29

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Priscilla Reid Hammond was attacked and beaten by an
armed

carjacker

Center (“KCMC”).
AlliedBarton

in

a

parking

lot

of

Kershaw

County

Medical

Hammond filed this diversity action against

Security

Services

LLC

(“AlliedBarton”),

alleging

that AlliedBarton was negligent in providing security services
to KCMC.
of

The district court granted summary judgment in favor

AlliedBarton,

and

Hammond

appeals.

Finding

no

error,

we

affirm.
Hammond

challenges

the

district

court’s

conclusions

that AlliedBarton had only assumed those duties evidenced by its
contractual
voluntarily

agreement,
assumed

that

through

it
its

had

not

contractual

breached

a

relationship

duty
with

KCMC, and that Hammond otherwise failed to provide evidence of a
breach.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing

the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party.
F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010).

Robinson v. Clipse, 602

Summary judgment is appropriate

when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Although a business owner, such as KCMC, has a duty to
take reasonable care to protect invitees to its property from
foreseeable risk, see, e.g., Bass v. Gopal, Inc., 716 S.E.2d
2

Appeal: 11-2333

Doc: 29

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

910, 913 (S.C. 2011), this duty does not automatically extend to
AlliedBarton.
evidence

We conclude that Hammond has failed to provide

sufficient

to

establish

that

AlliedBarton

should

be

held responsible for KCMC’s duty to ensure the safety of KCMC’s
patrons,

beyond

undertaken

the

pursuant

to

scope

of

their

those

duties

contractual

specifically

relationship.

See

Madison ex rel. Bryant v. Babcock Ctr., Inc., 638 S.E.2d 650,
656-57 (S.C. 2006); Dorrell v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 605 S.E.2d
12, 14 (S.C. 2004).

Taking the evidence in the light most

favorable to Hammond, we also conclude that the record does not
establish

that

AlliedBarton

either

voluntarily

assumed

duties

beyond its contractual requirements, breached its duties under
the

contract,

or

failed

to

adequately

train

its

employees.

Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment in
favor of AlliedBarton.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3