Car Accidents

South Carolina Court Holds that PIP Benefits May Be Reduced by Amount Paid for Insured’s Medical Expenses by Workers’ Compensation Carrier

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Sometimes, a personal injury or wrongful death case involves only two parties and one theory of liability. For example, when one motorist’s negligence harms another driver in a South Carolina car accident, the injured driver may only need to file a simple negligence claim against the careless motorist who caused the crash.

However, many cases are not so simple, and sorting out how who is liable and whose insurance company must pay for which damages can be a complex endeavor indeed. For example, what happens when a car accident injures someone who is on the job? Who is responsible for the injured person’s medical expenses – the workers’ compensation carrier or the injured person’s personal injury protection automobile accident insurer?

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Supreme Court Refuses Non-Settling Defendants’ Attempt to Add Settling Party as a Third-Party Defendant in Car Crash Case

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Suppose that three people are involved in an automobile accident, and the parties agree that one of the three was completely faultless with regard to the cause of the crash.

How should the issue of fault be resolved between the remaining two drivers? What if the innocent party settles his negligence claim with one of the drivers but not the other?

The state’s highest court was recently called upon to rule in a case involving such a situation.

Reviewing the Statistics of Car Crashes in South Carolina

Published on: September 28, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Since our office regularly represents people who have been seriously injured in a car accident or lost a loved one in a fatal motor vehicle collision, we are well aware of the tragic frequency at which automobile crashes happen on the highways of South Carolina.

Still, it is with great concern that we review the most recent collection of traffic collision facts published by the South Carolina Department of Public Safety.

South Carolina Court Interprets “Meeting or Overtaking” a School Bus in Car Accident Case – Singleton v. Cuthbert

Published on: August 26, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Every driver should know that South Carolina state law requires a motorist to stop when he or she is meeting or overtaking a school bus with its flashing red lights activated.

For obvious safety reasons, a driver is simply not allowed to pass a stopped school bus, nor is he or she allowed to drive past such a bus from the opposite direction. This much is clear from the plain language of the statute.

However, there can be other, less obvious situations involving a driver’s obligation to stop in the presence of a school bus with its lights flashing. In a case recently considered by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, one driver apparently assumed that it was safe to make a left turn when the bus was stopped, but another driver passed the bus and struck the first driver’s car in the side.

After Insurance Company’s Insolvency, the Association Managing Its South Carolina Claims Could Not Offset Amounts Recovered from Other Insurers – Buchanan v. S.C. Property and Casualty Insurance

Published on: August 26, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Being successful in a wrongful death lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle accident requires that the plaintiff prove the basic elements of negligence (duty, breach of duty, damages, and causation). Unfortunately, however, not every legally sound case results in a fair amount of compensation for the victim’s family.

The second – and more practical – inquiry focuses on the actual payment of the damages award entered by the trial court. If the responsible party does not have adequate insurance (or personal assets) to cover the judgment, the plaintiff could be left with very little, if any, monetary compensation, even in a clear-cut case of liability.

Federal Court in South Carolina Rules that Golf Cart Accident Was Not Covered Under Manufactured Home Insurance Policy – American Southern Home Insurance Company v. Goodale

Published on: August 26, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Do you have insurance on your home? Do you know what it covers?

As a recent case shows, if you have homeowner’s liability insurance, you might think you are covered for more situations than you actually are. It’s always a good idea to review your policy from time to time so that you understand exactly what is – and is not – covered.

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 ›

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.

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.

$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 ›