South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

$3 Million Verdict Against Unknown Trucker Affirmed by South Carolina Appellate Court – Tucker v. Doe

Published on: September 4, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you had a car accident due to the negligence of someone else but you had no way of identifying the negligent party? South Carolina law requires every motor vehicle owner to carry uninsured motorist (UM) insurance, which may allow you to file a lawsuit ostensibly against the “John Doe” who caused the accident, and, if the suit is successful, your UM carrier will be liable for the damages ultimately awarded by the courts (up to the amount of your policy limits).

In theory, this might sound a little bit like shooting fish in a barrel; after all, you and your insurance company are on the same side, right? Unfortunately, no, you are not. Proceedings against a UM carrier can be just as adversarial – sometimes, even more adversarial – than a run-of-the-mill lawsuit in which the actual defendant is known and present at trial. Continue Reading ›

South Carolina Landowners’ Class Action Suit for Property Devaluation Should Not Have Been Dismissed – Chestnut v. AVX Corporation

Published on: August 28, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a class action lawsuit, the plaintiff attempts to seek justice against the defendant not only on his or her own behalf, but also on behalf of those similarly situated. Of course, it is up to the trial court to determine whether to certify the plaintiff’s suit as a class action and, if it does so, to decide exactly who is entitled to be part of the class.

Class action suits are important because they allow a large group of individuals to share litigation expenses in a suit that might not be viable if each plaintiff had to pay his or her own attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses.

In the case of Chestnut v. AVX Corporation, the plaintiffs were landowners who sued the defendant, an electronics manufacturer in the North Myrtle Beach area, on claims of nuisance, negligence, and strict liability arising from the manufacturer’s use of a degreasing chemical known as trichloroethylene (TCE). The manufacturer’s use of TCE began in 1980. In 1996, the manufacturer admitted to state authorities that it had violated certain state environmental laws and agreed to implement a clean-up plan.

$90,000 Jury Verdict in Favor of South Carolina Woman Whose Son Was Stillborn Affirmed on Appeal – Jamison v. Hilton

Published on: August 21, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

A stillbirth occurs when a baby dies after the 20th week of pregnancy. According to the March of Dimes, this tragic event happens in about one out of every 160 pregnancies in the United States. It can be caused by a number of factors, including birth defects, problems with the placenta, infections, umbilical cord issues, and chronic health conditions in the mother.

Sometimes, a stillbirth is not preventable. Other times, it may be possible to save the baby if appropriate measures are taken by the mother’s physicians and other medical personnel. A recent decision by the South Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a case in which a mother whose son was stillborn alleged that her doctors’ negligence caused her son’s death.

The Facts of the Case

In the case of Jamison v. Hilton, the plaintiff was a woman who delivered a stillborn infant via Caesarean section after the baby’s heart stopped beating at 32 weeks gestation. She sued two of her doctors and their obstetrical practice, claiming that her son’s death could have been prevented if they had complied with the applicable standard of care.

$237,454,195 Award in South Carolina Whistleblower’s Suit Brought under the Federal False Claims Act Affirmed on Appeal – Drakeford v. Tuomey

Published on: August 7, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

The United States government is a huge entity that cannot possibly be aware of every instance of fraud of which it is a victim. To increase the odds in the government’s favor, Congress passed the False Claims Act, which contains a qui tam provision through which a whistleblower may initiate a lawsuit on the federal government’s behalf, seeking recovery for alleged fraud committed against the government. The federal government may or may not join in the suit at some point.

If the suit is ultimately successful, the whistleblower is awarded a percentage of the recovery. The possibility of this award serves as an incentive for those who are aware of potential fraud against the government to act on its behalf by filing suit under the False Claims Act. Some qui tam actions can be lengthy and complex, especially when large sums of money are at stake.

Plaintiffs in South Carolina Nursing Home Negligence Suit Entitled to Review of Trial Court’s Bifurcation of Corporate Defendants Prior to Trial – Morrow v. Fundamental Long-Term Care Holdings, LLC

Published on: July 24, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

In injury litigation, sometimes there is but a single defendant – the driver of a car or the owner of a small business, perhaps. Other times, however, there are multiple defendants and multiple claims. A seemingly simple case can quickly get complex.

Defendants often resist being brought into a lawsuit and will avail themselves of every available opportunity to ask for a dismissal of the case against them. While a thorough accident attorney can spend countless hours researching a case so as not to omit a possible wrongdoer, it is ultimately up to the court to decide who stays and who goes.

Allen Charge to Jury in South Carolina Motorcycle/Heavy Equipment Accident Was Not Coercive – Johnson v. Sam English Grading, Inc.

Published on: July 10, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a perfect world, the evidence in a lawsuit would be so obviously convincing in favor of one party or the other that a jury would be able to reach a quick and unanimous verdict. In the real world, however, a case in which the evidence is so clearly in one party’s favor usually gets settled out of court.

As for the rest, the question sometimes arises as to what a judge should do after the jury has said they are deadlocked. In the landmark case of Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), the nation’s highest court approved, at least for the federal courts, a jury instruction advising jurors to listen to one another with a disposition towards being convinced of each other’s arguments.

Recently, the South Carolina Court of Appeals was called upon to consider whether an Allen charge was acceptable in a particular South Carolina state court case.

Subcontractor’s Employee Who Was Killed While Returning to South Carolina After Making a Delivery Was a Statutory Employer of an Upstream Contractor – Collins v. Seko Charlotte

Published on: June 15, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Workers’ compensation laws are supposed to simplify the process by which an injured worker, or the family of an employee killed in an on-the-job accident, receives monetary compensation. Of course, the actual ease of the process depends upon several factors, and some cases can be much more complicated than it would seem on the surface.

While factors such as extent of a worker’s disability or whether he or she can return to the pre-injury job are relatively common, other issues can arise. In the recent case of Collins v. Seko Charlotte, the issue was not the amount of compensation due but the pocket from which it would come.

South Carolina Worker’s Appeal Within 30 Days of Denial of Rehearing by Appellate Panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission Was Timely – Rhame v. Charleston County School District

Published on: June 1, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

The familiar adage “time is of the essence” is never more true than in a court of law. Consequently, if you have been hurt in an accident, it is important to contact an attorney about your case as soon as possible. This is because, regardless of the merits of your potential lawsuit, the failure to file your case within the time afforded by law usually means there can be no recovery.

Strict deadlines also apply to other procedural matters, such as the time allowed for filing an appeal. Recently, the state’s highest court was called upon to determine whether the usual time requirements for appealing a worker’s compensation decision could be extended in a particular case.

Workers’ Compensation Under Attack By Wal-Mart And Others

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

A nationwide campaign is underway to gut workers’ compensation laws financed by several large well-known companies including Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, Safeway, Nordstrom, Macy’s, Sysco Food Services, Kohl’s, and several large insurance companies. These companies have formed a lobbying group known as the Association for Responsible Alternative Workers’ Compensation (ARAWC). The organization is attempting to write legislation in several states which would make it more difficult for workers hurt on the job to obtain their lost wages and medical care.

The goal of these large companies is for them to be allowed to opt-out of traditional workers’ compensation plans required in most states. Instead, these large companies would be allowed to write their own plans with their own rules controlling how long and for what reason an injured employee would have access to medical benefits and wages.

Not only would this be unfair to the workers in the states where these plans exist, but it would also be unfair to the medium and small businesses of those states which could not afford to opt-out of state required workers’ compensation benefits. Instead, premiums would go up for those medium and small businesses. This plan would also endanger the uninsured fund of each state to which all employers must contribute. By opting-out, these large companies would not have to contribute to the uninsured fund.

Why Were Workers’ Compensation Laws Created?

Published on: May 15, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Workers’ compensation laws are a product of the 20th century. According to the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission, prior to the passage of these statutes, workplace injuries were addressed through individual lawsuits. If there was an employee hurt on the job, that person had to file a negligence lawsuit against his or her employer in order to collect compensation. This type of litigation would require proof that an employer behaved negligently, and that this negligence caused the worker’s injury.

While workers could recover damages through these lawsuits, the process was generally slow and costly. In addition, there were no guarantees that workers would receive compensation in the end.

Workers’ compensation laws were passed in an attempt to improve these situations. Under these statutes, workers enjoy guaranteed benefits. These payments address lost income and medical expenses, as well as income benefits to the dependents of deceased workers.