## Facts

- Nine-year-old Ginger Sierra, a fourth-grade student at Irmo Elementary School, slipped and fell from a metal “monkey bar” device on the school playground and broke her right leg.
- The injury significantly damaged the leg’s growth plate, later requiring surgeries to remove growth plates in both legs.
- The monkey bar device had been modified in 1991: its height was lowered from about four feet to about two feet, a bench beneath it was removed, and students typically walked or crawled across it without hand-held side supports.
- The school principal was aware children walked on the device and had expressed safety concerns about playground conditions, including fall-surface conditions and equipment height.
- Christine Elledge (on her own behalf and for Ginger) sued the school district for negligence and gross negligence based on unsafe playground equipment.
- Before trial, the district obtained an order excluding evidence and testimony concerning playground industry standards, including U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) guidelines and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards.
- A jury returned a verdict for the school district after the exclusion of the industry-standards evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by excluding CPSC guidelines and ASTM standards as evidence relevant to the standard of care in a negligence action against a school district.
2. Whether excluding that evidence was prejudicial, requiring reversal and a new trial.
3. Whether challenged jury instructions on negligence and duty compounded or reflected error in the trial proceedings.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the defense verdict and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that CPSC guidelines and ASTM standards were relevant and admissible as evidence bearing on the standard of care.
- The trial court’s blanket exclusion of the standards and related testimony was an abuse of discretion.
- The exclusion was prejudicial because it removed probative evidence the jury could use to evaluate whether the district exercised reasonable care in playground design and maintenance.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence cases, voluntary guidelines and industry standards may be admissible as evidence of the standard of care, even if they are not legally binding.
- The existence of a legal duty is decided by the court, but what conduct satisfies reasonable care (breach/standard of care) is typically a fact question informed by relevant evidence, including expert testimony and industry standards.
- A trial court abuses its discretion when it excludes relevant standard-of-care evidence on an improper basis, and reversal is warranted when the exclusion likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial because the jury should have been permitted to consider CPSC and ASTM playground-safety materials as relevant evidence of reasonable care; excluding that evidence was prejudicial error in a case turning on the safety of school playground equipment.


Elledge v. Richland/Lexington Sch. Dist. Five, 534 S.E.2d 289 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000)