ORDER
Plaintiff has brought this negligence action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80, seeking to recover damages for injuries she sustained as a result of an incident in which she fell on a public sidewalk which abuts the former United States Post Office (“post office”) in Fort Mill, South Carolina. On August 10 and 12, 1994, the Court tried this action without a jury.1 After carefully reviewing the record and the controlling legal authorities, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled to judgment. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law, made pursuant to Rule 52 *1462of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, detail the basis for the Court’s conclusion.2
I. Findings Of Fact
On August 30, 1989, at approximately 9:00 p.m., plaintiff went to the post- office, which was located on the corner of Spring Street and Tom Hall Street in the town of Fort Mill to check her post office box. At that time, the post office was closed, but the area in which the post office boxes were located was open for the convenience of persons to whom the boxes were leased. After parking her car on Spring Street, just north of the post office entrance, plaintiff exited her car, stepped up onto the curb, and started walking on a public sidewalk which abuts the post office. As plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk towards the entrance of the post office, she stepped on a clear plastic band which caught her feet and caused her to fall.
The location of plaintiffs fall is on a public sidewalk, approximately three feet off of- the premises leased by the post office.3 Defendant does not control this area. On the night of plaintiffs fall, the area around the entrance of the post office was illuminated by light shining from the post office lobby, a spotlight on the front left comer of the post office building, and a streetlight across the street.
The clear plastic band which caused plaintiff to fall is the type of band which was used to bundle mail that was delivered to the post office. At the time of plaintiffs fall, it was post office procedure to take mail that had been delivered to the post office to a distribution and work area in a back room, separate from the customer area of the post office, where postal employees cut the plastic bands and sorted the mail. Because postal employees knew that the plastic bands, when uncut and not around mail, were a trip hazard, it was post office policy to discipline employees if they failed to cut the plastic bands when removing mail therefrom.4 One exception to this mail sorting procedure was for “firm mail,” which is mail addressed to recipients of large amounts of mail. With regard to firm mail, postal employees left the mail bound in the plastic bands and allowed couriers to take it out of the back door of the post office. However, postal employees did not allow mail bound in plastic bands to be taken out the front door of the post office, and they did not place mail bound in plastic bands in any of the individual post office boxes. While there is no evidence to establish how the clear plastic band which caused plaintiffs fall came to be upon the sidewalk, the Court finds that it did come from the post office.
The Postmaster of the Fort Mill Post Office at the time of plaintiffs accident, John Harrison, was responsible for ensuring that all areas outside and inside the premises of the post office were inspected and kept clean. Mr. Harrison’s daily routine was to inspect the premises when he came on duty in the morning and again at approximately 6:00 p.m., when he left for the day. Mr. Harrison followed this routine on the day plaintiff fell. While Mr. Harrison never found any uncut plastic bands on or around the premises pri- or to plaintiffs fall, he occasionally found cut bands near a trash dumpster behind the post office, and he found other debris outside the post office. Mr. Harrison knew of no other accidents or falls on or near the premises of the post office prior to the plaintiffs fall.
As a result of her fall, plaintiff sustained injuries and incurred medical expenses in the amount of $7,533.25. Prior to commencing this action, plaintiff filed an administrative claim with the United States Postal Service, which denied her claim on April 11, 1990. Plaintiff thereafter filed this action alleging that defendant was negligent in: (1) failing to provide adequate lighting at or near the entrance to the post office premises; (2) allowing plastic bands to litter the entrance of the post office; (3) failing to remove the plastic band from the entrance to the post office *1463premises; (4) failing to • instruct and train postal employees to keep the plastic bands in work areas in the post office; (5) failing to use safeguards to prevent the plastic bands from being left at the entrance to the post office; and (6) failing to keep the post office premises clear of plastic bands and otherwise safe.
II. Conclusions Of Law
The FTCA provides inter alia that “[t]he United States shall be hable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be hable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Plaintiff has properly exhausted her administrative remedies under the FTCA; see 28 U.S.C. § 2675; and the Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Because plaintiffs injury occurred in South Carolina, the Court must apply South Carolina law in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. '
Under South Carolina law, negligence is defined as “the failure to use due care; that degree of care which a person of ordinary prudence and reason would exercise under the same circumstances.” Hart v. Doe, 261 S.C. 116, 198 S.E.2d 526, 529 (1973). In order to prevail on her claim of negligence, plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) the existence of a legal duty of care on the part of defendant to protect her; (2) defendant’s failure to discharge that duty; and (3) injury proximately resulting from defendant’s failure to perform its duty. South Carolina State Ports Auth. v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 289 S.C. 373, 346 S.E.2d 324, 325 (1986). “The absence of any one of these elements renders the cause of action insufficient.” Id.
The initial inquiry in any negligence case is whether the defendant owed a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff. “A legal duty is that which the law requires to be done or forborne with respect to a particular individual or the public at large.” Byerly v. Connor, 307 S.C. 441, 415 S.E.2d 796, 798 (1992). “It embodies the principle that the plaintiff should not be called to suffer a harm to his person or property which is foreseeable and which can be avoided by the defendant’s exercise of reasonable care.” Snow v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 544, 409 S.E.2d 797, 803 (S.C.App.1991), cert. denied (S.C.1992). “Generally, there is no common law duty to act,” Jensen v. Anderson County D.S.S., 304 S.C. 195, 403 S.E.2d 615, 617 (1991); and, therefore, a duty normally arises by statute, contract, relationship, status, property interest, or other special circumstances. Byerly, 415 S.E.2d at 798.
Plaintiffs allegations of negligence can be pared down to two issues. First, plaintiff contends that defendant negligently failed to maintain the safety of the sidewalk by not properly lighting it and by not removing the plastic band upon which she fell from the sidewalk. Second, plaintiff contends that defendant negligently allowed the uncut plastic band upon which she fell to leave the work areas of the post office. The former issue presupposes that defendant had a legal duty to maintain the safety of the sidewalk, while the latter issue presupposes that defendant had a legal duty to keep all uncut plastic bands from leaving the post office work areas. As set forth below, the Court finds that neither of these alleged legal duties existed and, therefore, plaintiffs claims must fail as a matter of law;
A.
The Court will first address plaintiffs claim that defendant had a legal duty to maintain the safety of the public sidewalk abutting the post office premises. Initially, the Court notes that under South Carolina law, a public sidewalk is considered to be part Of the street or highway, see S.C.Code Ann. § 56 — 5—480; Burke v. Davidson, 298 S.C. 370, 380 S.E.2d 839, 840 (S.C.App.1989); and the General Assembly of South Carolina has imposed upon towns and municipalities a duty to keep all public streets, ways, and bridges within the limits therein in good repair. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 5-27-110, -120. Additionally, the state supreme court has held that pedestrians have the right to assume that public sidewalks are maintained by the appropriate governmental entity in rea*1464sonably safe condition for public use, Kelley v. City of Aiken, 245 S.C. 503, 141 S.E.2d 651, 653 (1965); and that court has recognized that:
“The general rule in this country is that municipalities which have full and complete control over the streets and highways within their corporate limits are hable in damages for injuries sustained in consequence of their failure to use reasonable care to keep them in a reasonably safe condition for public travel.”
Terrell v. City of Orangeburg, 176 S.C. 518, 180 S.E. 670, 672 (1935) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243, 329 S.E.2d 741, 744 (1985) (abolishing sovereign immunity). Thus, there was clearly a legal duty on the part of the town of Fort Mill to maintain in a reasonably safe condition the sidewalk upon which plaintiff fell.
This fact does not, however, necessarily absolve defendant from any duty with respect to the safety of the sidewalk. See Chambers v. Whelen, 44 F.2d 340, 341 (4th Cir.1930) (“the fact that a duty is imposed upon public officials to maintain the safety of a street or highway does not necessarily absolve an abutting owner from duty with respect thereto”). Indeed, the state supreme court has recognized that “[i]n many jurisdictions it has been held that a municipality and an abutting landowner or occupier may be joined as defendants in an action for injuries resulting from defects in a sidewalk or highway where all are charged with á common duty to the traveling public, even though there may be no concert of action between them.” Hollifield v. Keller, 238 S.C. 584, 121 S.E.2d 213, 216-17 (1961), overruled on other grounds by Batson, 329 S.E.2d at 744. While the Hollifield court recognized this principle, it did not directly hold that an abutting landowner or occupier has (or may have) a duty of care with respect to the safety of a public sidewalk.5
The general rule appears to be that an abutting landowner or occupier normally does not have a duty of care with respect to the safety of the sidewalk unless such a duty is imposed by legislation, the abutter created an unsafe condition on the sidewalk, or the abutter has a special property interest in the sidewalk. See 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, Streets, and Bridges §• 365 (1968) (“An owner or occupant of land abutting on a highway, street, or sidewalk, who does not enjoy a private .servitude in the way, does not, in the absence of statute or ordinance to the contrary, owe to the public a duty to keep the way in a sáfe condition, and is generally held not liable for injuries sustained by travelers thereon as a result of conditions which he has not been instrumental in creating or maintaining”); 40 C.J.S. Highways § 256 (1991) (“Ordinarily, an abutting owner is not hable for the condition of a sidewalk constituting a part of the highway in-front of the premises-in the absence of a duty created by statute or ordinance, such as for defective conditions which resulted from causes not traceable to him and which he had no legal duty to correct”). This is also the English common law rulé, see Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., 87 N.J. 146, 432 A.2d 881, 885 (1981) (citing The King v. Inhabitants of Sheffield, 2 T.R. 106, 111, 100 E.R. 58, 61 (K.B. 1787));.6 *1465which, although not necessarily binding, “ordinarily is presumed to govern if there is no South Carolina authority to the contrary.” State v. Sloan Constr. Co., 284 S.C. 491, 328 S.E.2d 84, 87 (S.C.App.1985); see S.C.Code Ann. § 14-1-50 (“All, and every part, of the common law of England, where it is not altered by the Code or inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of this State, is hereby continued in full force and effect in the same manner as before the adoption of this section”).
While no South Carolina court appears to have squarely addressed the issue of whether an abutting landowner or occupier has a duty to maintain the public sidewalk in a safe condition, the appellate courts of this state have on several occasions refused .to impose a duty on one whose land abuts a public highway to maintain that highway in a safe condition. For example, in Morris v. Langley Mills, 121 S.C. 200, 113 S.E. 632 (1922), which was a wrongful death action, the plaintiffs intestate drowned by falling from a causeway on a public highway in Aiken County into a pond which was on the premises of Langley Mills. The plaintiff sued both the county and Langley Mills, alleging that the cause of death was the defendants’ negligent failure to erect and maintain proper safeguards to prevent persons using the causeway from falling into the pond. The trial judge inter alia directed a verdict in favor of Langley Mills and, on appeal, the supreme court affirmed, holding:
The alleged delict upon which plaintiffs cause of action is based was the failure to erect and maintain proper safeguards to prevent falling from the causeway into the pond. Since it is undisputed that the causeway was a part of the public highway, wholly under the jurisdiction and control of the defendant county, in the opinion of a majority of this court the duty, if any, to prevent falling from the causeway into the pond rested upon the county, and not upon the defendant Langley Mills.
Id., 113 S.E. at 633 (emphasis added).
Similarly, in Dunbar v. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Company, 211 S.C. 209, 44 S.E.2d 314 (1947), the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident on a public highway which crossed the defendant railroad’s right-of-way and connected two other public highways. The plaintiff alleged that the accident occurred because the conditions at the point of intersection between the crossing and one of the highways required a motorist to enter that highway in a dangerous manner, and that the defendant negligently permitted this condition to exist. The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer and the supreme court affirmed, stating in pertinent part:
There is nothing in the record to show whether the road crossing the defendant’s right-of-way was constructed before [or] after that of the parallel highway; however, the real test is one of control. Did the defendant railway company have any control of the manner of construction and maintenance of this intersection. We think not.
“The liability of an owner or occupant of real estate in reference to injuries caused by a dangerous or defective condition of the premises depends in general upon his having control of the property. In fact, such liability depends upon control, rather than ownership, of the premises.”
One cannot recover damages of another unless a failure to discharge some duty to the injured party is shown.
Regardless of the view taken, we come back to the fact that here we have a collision between two motorists at a junction of two highways which were located by public authorities over which such authorities had and now have sole control. The railroad *1466 company having no control or discretion in the location, construction or maintenance thereof, it is difficult to see how a collision occurring at this intersection of two highways is to be treated differently from one occurring at the intersections of any other two highways.
Id., 44 S.E. at 316-17 (citation omitted and emphasis added).
More recently, in Mahle v. Wilson, 283 S.C. 486, 323 S.E.2d 65 (S.C.App.1984), the plaintiff was struck by an automobile while crossing the public highway from a skating rink which fronted on the highway and which was operated by one of the defendants, Fun Wheels, Inc. The plaintiff alleged that Fun Wheels was negligent in (1) failing to provide adequate lighting on or near its premises; (2) failing to provide an adequate and lighted parking area; (3) allowing cars to park on the shoulder of the public highway opposite the skating rink; (4) failing to request posted speed limit signs; (5) failing to request or to provide a pedestrian crosswalk; and (6) failing. to post a warning signal or traffic control device on or near its premises. The trial judge sustained Fun Wheel’s demurrer, and the question presented to the court of appeals was “what duty, if any, an adjoining property owner owes to one injured on a public highway adjacent to his property.” Id., 323 S.E. at 66. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, concluding that Fun Wheels did not owe any duty with respect to any of the plaintiff’s allegations. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court of appeals appears to have at least implicitly considered it significant that Fun Wheels did not control the area upon which the plaintiff was injured.
The case of Winburn v. United States, 334 F.Supp. 682 (D.S.C.1971), appears to be the most closely analogous South Carolina ease from a factual standpoint, and the holding there is consistent with the eases cited above. In Winbum, the plaintiff sought damages which resulted from a fall she suffered while exiting a county building in which a temporary Social Security Administration (“SSA”) office, among other offices, was located. While the plaintiff had visited the budding to meet with an SSA representative, the budding was generally used for county purposes, and the SSA asserted no control over the budding other than the room which it occasionady occupied. Following trial, the court entered judgment in favor of the United States, holding in pertinent part:
It is clear that the area where Mrs. Win-burn fell at the Darlington County Health Budding is owned, maintained, and controlled by Darlington County, and not by the Social Security Administration or any agent of the United States of America. The United States of America had and exercised no control, nor authority over this area of the fall by the plaintiff.
Id. at 685 (emphasis added).
An additional case which is worthy of note is Bryant v. City of North Charleston, 304 S.C. 123, 403 S.E.2d 159 (S.C.App.), cert. denied (S.C.1991); in which the plaintiff sued the City of North Charleston for negligence alleging that she was injured when she fed into an unguarded hole on a city sidewalk. Fodowing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the City appealed, arguing inter alia that “because it did not own or maintain the sidewalk where [the plaintiff] fed, it did not owe her any legal duty.” Id., 403 S.E. at 160-61. The court of appeals rejected the City’s argument, finding that even if the City did not own the sidewalk, there was sufficient evidence in the record to estabdsh that the City assumed the duty for its maintenance. Id., 403 S.E. at 161. Impdcit in this decision is the court of appeals’ recognition that the duty to maintain the safety of a. sidewalk generally rests upon the party who owns or controls the sidewalk. See also Milligan v. Winn-Dixie Raleigh, Inc., 273 S.C. 118, 254 S.E.2d 798, 799 (1979) (in sdp and fad action based premises dabidty, court began its analysis by initially assuming arguendo that the defendant controded a portion of common sidewalk upon which the plaintiff fed).
As noted, a legal duty for purposes of negdgence dabidty normady arises by statute, contract, relationship, status, property interest, or other special circumstances. Plaintiff has not cited, and the Court has not found, any statutory or other legislative authority which imposes a duty upon abutting property owners or occupiers to maintain a pubdc sidewalk. Likewise, plaintiff has not *1467presented any contractual obligation or other relationship which would give rise to such a duty in this case. While at least one court has considered the commercial status of an abutter sufficient to create a duty, see Stewart, the decision of the court in Mahle, which clearly involved a commercial entity, implicitly rejects this concept of liability. Moreover, no South Carolina court appears to have applied rationale similar to that of Stewart in the context of a negligence action, and the Court declines to do so here.7 Therefore, the crux of this issue appears from authorities cited above to be whether defendant had a property interest in the sidewalk which is sufficient to trigger a duty to maintain it in a safe condition, or whether special circumstances exist so as to trigger such a duty.
With respect to the question of whether defendant had a sufficient property interest in the sidewalk, the Court concludes that it did not. The South Carolina eases cited above, particularly Morris and Dunbar, expressly direct that unless the abutting property owner or occupier has control over the public way, then the abutter is under no duty to maintain the safety of the way simply because its property abuts the way. There is no evidence in the record to establish that defendant had any control over the sidewalk upon which plaintiff fell.
Likewise, the Court concludes that there are no special circumstances which would give rise to a duty of care on the part of defendant. While the plastic band which caused plaintiffs fall came from defendant’s premises, there is no evidence in the record to establish that defendant was in any way responsible for, or had knowledge of, its presence on the sidewalk. In this regard, this case is distinguishable from cases such as Hollifield and Israel, since the landowners or occupiers in those cases either created a hazard on the abutting or adjacent premises, or they allowed a hazardous condition to exist on their property which caused harm on the abutting or adjacent property. The situations in those cases are entirely consistent with the general rule cited above, in which a duty of care is imposed upon the abutting landowner or occupier where it has created or maintained a hazard on the sidewalk, or the hazard is otherwise legally traceable to it.8 Moreover, unlike the situation in Bryant, there is no evidence in the record to establish that defendant assumed the duty to maintain the safety of the sidewalk.9
In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that defendant did not owe a legal duty to maintain the safety of the sidewalk upon which plaintiff fell. Accordingly, plaintiffs allegations concerning defendant’s failure to properly light the sidewalk and to *1468keep it clear of plastic bands cannot support her cause of action for negligence.
B.
The Court now turns to plaintiffs contention that defendant was negligent because it allowed an uncut plastic band to leave the work areas of the post office. It is clear that the plastic bands, when uncut and separated from mail, were a trip hazard that was known to postal employees. Indeed, that is why the post office had a policy of disciplining employees who failed to cut the bands when removing mail therefrom, and this policy, although not determinative, can be considered as evidence of whether a legal, duty of care existed in this regard. See Araujo v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 291 S.C. 54, 351 S.E.2d 908, 910 (S.C.App.1986) (“company rules are admissible as evidence of negligence, but ... the question of whether a defendant owes a duty, the breach of which may constitute negligence, is a question of law, not fact”). However, it is equally clear that the uncut plastic bands were only a trip hazard when they were separated from mail. When the plastic bands were “in use” — that is, when they were not separated from mail — they were not a trip hazard.
In Howell v. Hairston, 261 S.C. 292, 199 S.E.2d 766, 770 (1973), the state supreme court recognized:
Some instrumentalities are almost always, if not always, dangerous; for example, dynamite. On the other hand, some instrumentalities are almost always, if not always, not dangerous; for example, a powder puff. Many instrumentalities are dangerous or not dangerous because of then-use or potential use under the circumstances. For example, a small pocketknife would normally not be designated a dangerous instrumentality, but if it, with an open blade, is given to a small child in a nursery, it might become a dangerous instrumentality.
“It is not always possible to say that, a particular instrument is dangerous or not dangerous as a matter of law.” Id. Instead, the particular facts and circumstances of each case are determinative in most, but not all, instances.
For example, in Howell, the parents of one child brought a negligence suit against the parents of another child to recover medical expenses incurred as a result of an incident in which the latter child shot the former child with an air. rifle. On appeal from the trial court’s grant of a non-suit in favor of the defendants, the state supreme court reversed. One aspect of the appeal involved whether the trial court should have stricken from the complaint an allegation that the air rifle was a dangerous instrumentality such that the defendants should not have allowed their child to possess it. The supreme court, after setting forth the above-quoted principle, held:
We need not hold that an air rifle is a dangerous instrumentality to warrant the conclusion that the allegation should not have been stricken from the complaint. It is sufficient to warrant its inclusion in the complaint to say that a jury could reasonably conclude that an air rifle was a dangerous instrumentality under the conditions alleged. The plaintiffs should be allowed to allege and to prove, if they can, that the air rifle was a dangerous instrumentality under the circumstances of this case.
199 S.E.2d at 770 (emphasis added).
In a more recent case, Dennis v. Timmons, 437 S.E.2d 138, 140 (S.C.App.1993), the state court of appeals was presented with facts somewhat similar to those of Howell, in that one child, while playing with a screwdriver, injured another child. In a negligence action brought by the parents of the injured child against the other child and the owners of the screwdriver, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, one issue was whether the trial court properly ruled that the screwdriver was not a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law. The court of appeals, after citing the general principle laid down in Howell, stated:
We hold that a screwdriver is not an instrumentality which is almost always dangerous. A screwdriver is, of course, a common object which can be found in most homes. Although it is obviously possible *1469to use a screwdriver in such a manner that it becomes a dangerous instrumentality, such an object is not inherently likely to inflict serious bodily injury on another person unless it is intentionally used for that purpose or is handled in a reckless and dangerous manner.
437 S.E.2d at 140.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that although defendant may have had a legal duty to ensure that all uncut plastic bands which were separated from mail must remain in the post office work areas, a fact which the Court need not decide, it did not have a legal duty to ensure that all uncut plastic bands, whether separated from mail or not, must remain there. See Byerly, 415 S.E.2d at 799 (recognizing that party’s legal duty may be limited to the circumstances surrounding its actions). Like the screwdriver at issue in Dennis, while it is obviously possible for the plastic bands to be used in a dangerous manner, a plastic band is not always almost dangerous — that is, it is “not inherently likely to inflict serious bodily injury on another unless it is intentionally used for that purpose or is handled in a reckless or dangerous manner.” 437 S.E.2d at 140. Allowing couriers to pick up “firm mail” bound in the plastic bands as defendant did is neither reckless nor dangerous, but is simply an efficient means of providing mail service.
Because there is no evidence to establish how the plastic band which caused plaintiffs fall came to be upon the sidewalk, and because there was no legal duty on defendant’s part to ensure that all uncut plastic bands remained in post office work areas, this claim must also fail as a matter of law. It would be a matter of pure speculation to hold that the plastic band was on the sidewalk as a result of a breach of legal duty by defendant, since it is entirely possible that the band left post office premises attached to firm mail and was thereafter removed by a courier.10
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS on this the 29th day of September, 1994, at Columbia, South Carolina, that judgment be ENTERED in favor of defendant,