South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission Erred in Requiring Injured Worker to Establish Change of Condition by Objective Evidence – Russell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Published on: March 29, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Although there are limitations and certain disadvantages to a workers’ compensation case as opposed to a more traditional negligence lawsuit, there are some pluses. Among these is the opportunity to reopen one’s case if there is a change in one’s physical condition.

In other injury cases, such as those arising from motor vehicle accidents and product liability claims, this is not possible. Once a jury determines the amount of damages to which an injured person is entitled, and a judge enters judgment upon the verdict, the case is over (except, of course, in cases of an appeal, but even then a change in condition is not likely to result in any increase in the amount of damages for the plaintiff).

In workers’ compensation cases, however, increased benefits are a possibility in some situations.

South Carolina Worker’s Family Was Not Entitled to Benefits for Deceased Worker’s Death Because No Exception to the Coming and Going Rule Applied – Wofford v. City of Spartanburg

Published on: March 29, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

When an employee is hurt or becomes ill as a result of his or her employment, the employee may pursue workers’ compensation benefits such as medical care, temporary total disability payments, and permanent total disability benefits.

In cases in which an employee dies as a result of his or her employment, the family of the worker is usually entitled to compensation in lieu of payments to the employee. However, in some cases, an issue arises as to whether an injury was, in fact, work-related or whether it arose during the course and scope of the worker’s employment.

South Carolina Appellate Court Finds Statute of Limitations Had Not Run on Work-Related Back Injury Claim – Rhame v. Charleston County School District

Published on: March 29, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Personal injury lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims must be timely filed, or else they will be dismissed unless they meet the very narrow criteria of an exception to the general rule.

The statutes of limitations that control the filing deadlines for injury and wrongful death lawsuits exist to encourage plaintiffs to pursue valid claims with reasonable diligence and to protect defendants against stale claims that might be difficult to defend due to the spoliation of evidence.

Of course, determining exactly when a claim accrued – and whether it qualifies as an exception to the general time limitations for a particular type of lawsuit – tends to be a difficult and highly contentious matter.

South Carolina’s Beverage Control Regulations: Restaurants And Bars Have Legal Responsibility For Drunk Drivers

Published on: February 18, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Historically, in South Carolina , there was no common law cause of action holding restaurants and bars responsible for injuries by drunk drivers who consumed alcohol at their establishments. In numerous states, dram shop acts were legislated which provided remedies to those injured by drunk drivers who were over served at restaurants and bars. South Carolina enacted “Beverage Control Regulations” which included criminal penalties for alcohol served by restaurants and bars to intoxicated individuals. Later, South Carolina created a civil cause of action based on a violation of South Carolina Code 61-4-580(2) and 61-6-2220 which prohibit the knowing sale of beer or wine to an intoxicated person or the sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons.

Prior to 2007, South Carolina courts seemed to require an injured person seeking redress against a restaurant or bar to prove that such an establishment “knowingly” sold alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 332 S.C. 90, 504 S.E.2d. 318 (1998). In 2010, our supreme court extended responsibility for bartenders of such establishments by holding, “The proper standard, … is whether the bartenders negligently served alcoholic beverages by a person who, by his appearance or otherwise, would lead a prudent man to believe that the person was intoxicated.” The Court went on to say that, “In our view, ‘knew or should have known’ is the articulation of the objective ‘reasonable person’ standard.” Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge and Grill, Inc., 388 S.C. 407, 419, 697 S.E.2d. 558, 564 (2010). Continue Reading ›

South Carolina Plant Employee Was “User” of Product for Sodium Bromate for Purposes of Strict Product Liability Analysis – Lawing v. Univar, USA, Inc.

Published on: January 3, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Product liability cases can involve many different theories of liability. Typically, the issues in the case are narrowed during the litigation process, with only some claims actually being tried. It is therefore crucially important for a trial court to properly instruct the jury on the issues presented at trial.

In the recent case of Lawing v. Univar, USA, Inc., the plaintiff worked as a maintenance mechanic at a plant that produced a precious metal catalyst used in the automobile industry and refined metals from recycled materials. The mechanic’s employer purchased sodium bromate, an oxidizer needed in the refining process, from the defendant manufacturer (who sourced the product from another defendant, who obtained it from a facility in China through its subsidiary, also a defendant in the case).

In June 2004, a fire broke out in the plant, injuring the plaintiff. He brought a product liability lawsuit against the defendants, claiming that their packaging and labeling of the sodium bromate contributed to the fire. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff’s strict liability claim, but the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.

Thousands Of Innocent Bystanders Die In Police Chases

Published on: November 30, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

While it may be hard to believe, there is one death a day in our country from high speed police chases. Many times the vehicles travel at more than 100 miles per hour. According to USA Today, more than 5000 bystanders and passengers have been killed in police car chases since 1979, and tens of thousands more were injured as officers repeatedly pursued drivers at high speeds and in hazardous conditions. The majority of the offenses for which the high speed chase are undertaken are very minor in nature. Most bystanders were killed in their own cars by a fleeing driver.

On many occasions, it is the police vehicle which collides with an innocent vehicle making these chases dangerous for police as well. According to USA Today, at least a 139 police officers have been killed by chases. According to Tulsa Police Major Travis Yates, “a pursuit is probably the most unique and dangerous job law enforcement can do.” Despite these upsetting statistics, somehow chases have escaped national attention which has been paid to other potentially lethal police tactics.

Homeowner’s Negligence Suit Against Inspector Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Summary Judgment on Timeliness Issue – McAlhany v. Carter

Published on: November 25, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Negligence and personal injury lawsuits can arise in a variety of circumstances, including an accident in a home. Regardless of the location of the accident, the statute of limitations for injury cases must still be complied with.

In the case of McAlhany v. Carter, the plaintiff brought suit in the Bamberg County Circuit Court, asserting a claim of negligence against the defendants and seeking both property damages and compensation for personal injuries he sustained due to an alleged failure to inspect a home in a reasonably prudent manner in 2007.

Facts of the Case

According to the plaintiff, he purchased a home from the defendant “flipper,” who had contracted with the co-defendant inspector to perform a termite inspection on the subject property in 2007. In 2009, the plaintiff was allegedly injured while painting an interior wall in the home. According to the plaintiff, his paint roller penetrated the wall, thereby releasing mold spores, which he breathed. As a result of breathing the mold spores, the plaintiff said that he became ill, suffering from nosebleeds, burning eyes, sores, and sinus problems.

Johnson and Johnson Loses Another Risperdal Trial

Published on: November 19, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Yet another verdict for the male users of Risperdal as a Philadelphia jury ordered the drug manufacturer, Johnson and Johnson to pay twenty-one (21) year old Nicholas Murray 1.75 Million Dollars. Murray alleged that the use of Risperdal caused him to develop large breasts. Murray had alleged that Janssen Pharmaceuticals, one of J&J’s subsidiaries, failed to adequately warn patients and doctors of the risk of Risperdal, including a condition known as gynecomastia which is a condition causing boys to grow excessive breast tissue.

There are over 1500 cases pending in Pennsylvania State Court alone regarding Risperdal. This case is the third to have a jury verdict. In February of this year, a Philadelphia Jury awarded 2.5 Million Dollars in damages in another such case.

South Carolina Supreme Court Reinstates $900,000 Award of Damages Against Truck Manufacturer – Riley v. Ford Motor Company

Published on: November 13, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

It is unsettlingly common these days to hear of a large recall of cars, trucks, or SUVs, often as part of a settlement agreement between the manufacturer of the vehicles and the federal government as a result of findings that certain product defects have resulted in numerous injuries and deaths.

Recalls, unfortunately, do little if anything to compensate those whose lives have been shattered by defective or dangerous products. To do that, the injured party or the family of a deceased consumer must file a product liability lawsuit against the maker, wholesaler, or retail seller of the vehicle. Unfortunately, such cases may take years to reach trial and even longer to make their way through the appellate process.

South Carolina Jury Should Have Been Instructed Concerning Lack of Presumption of Intoxication for .018% BAC in Train-Car Collision – Stephens v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Published on: November 5, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

The right to a jury trial is very important to our civil justice system. That said, jury trials can be complex and lengthy because of all of the procedural safeguards that are in place to make sure that the jury, presumably made up of laymen, considers only admissible evidence and is instructed accurately concerning the law.

It is not uncommon for appellate courts to review jury verdicts on appeal and come to the conclusion that the trial judge tainted the jury by an erroneous ruling or instruction. When this happens, the case must be remanded for a new trial, basically starting the process anew.