Injuries

Dash Cam Evidence in Large Truck Accidents

Published on: July 3, 2023 | by Patrick E. Knie

Dash Cam video recorders are now common in large trucks. They record what the driver is seeing ahead of him. Some record the actions of the driver as well. Others even have cameras to the sides and back of the vehicle. The capabilities of these cameras continues to grow. Certain dash cams can be monitored by dispatchers and others to insure the driver is driving safely and paying attention to the traffic ahead.

Having a knowledgeable attorney in the area of large truck accidents makes a big difference in your case. Unfortunately, most large truck accidents result in serious injury or death. Preserving evidence at an early stage is critical to a successful outcome to one’s case. At Knie & Shealy Law Offices, we sent out preservation letters immediately to all potential responsible parties to ensure that critical evidence is saved by those parties. We also hire accident reconstruction experts to interpret the evidence we receive aa well as human factors experts to see if the truck driver was reacting reasonably.

Not only are dash cams present in many large trucks, they are also present on most police cars as well. There can be valuable information on them because, not only do they record what the scene looks like immediately following the accident, but they also record sound including eyewitness statements. Of course most police now wear body cams which also record sound as well. Such evidence is obtainable under a freedom of information request or by subpoena. the combination of large truck dash cams, police car dash cams, and body cams can create strong evidence to win a case case in court or settle it very favorably.

South Carolina Court Affirms $300,000 Jury Verdict in Car Accident Case Against Sheriff’s Department

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a South Carolina automobile accident case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent – that is, that the defendant’s failure to act in a reasonably prudent manner resulted in damages to the plaintiff.

Once this has been done, the defendant may seek to reduce the jury’s verdict by pointing the finger back at the plaintiff, accusing him or her of also being negligent in causing the accident. It is ultimately up to the jury to decide which side to believe and how much money to award the plaintiff if it finds in his or her favor.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case (unreported), the plaintiff was a woman who was struck by a vehicle as she walked alongside the road. She filed suit against the defendant sheriff department and its employee (who was driving the vehicle that struck her), seeking compensation for her injuries. The Marion County Circuit Court dismissed the employee from the case after finding that he was acting within the course and scope of his official duties as a reserve officer with the defendant sheriff’s department at the time of the accident.

South Carolina Court Affirms Dismissal of Negligence Claim for Failure to State a Claim

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a South Carolina personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant owed him or her some type of legal duty and that the defendant either acted in a manner that breached this duty or failed to take an action that a reasonably prudent person would have taken under the circumstances, thus causing harm to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff must also show that there was a link of proximate causation between the defendant’s breach of duty and the damages about which the plaintiff complains. Unless the plaintiff can present credible, legally admissible evidence of his or her allegations, his or her case will be dismissed by the court.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unreported case arising in the Anderson County Circuit Court, the plaintiff was a man who filed suit against the defendants, asserting that they were negligence and seeking monetary compensation for his resulting damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s case pursuant to South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

South Carolina Court Reversed Summary Judgment in Favor of UM Carrier, Holding Claimant Was Not Negligent in Failing to Identify Hit and Run Driver

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

There are many scenarios through which a claim for uninsured or underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance benefits may arise. Typically, such a claim happens as a result of a South Carolina car accident in which the negligent driver either had no insurance at all or had only minimum coverage.

However, UM coverage can also apply in other situations, including an occasion in which the claimant is struck by another vehicle while walking as a pedestrian.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Appellate Court Reviews Case Arising from Confidential Settlement Agreement Entered in 2002

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

When a South Carolina personal injury lawsuit is filed, it can be resolved in several different ways. The plaintiff’s claim may be dismissed – either voluntarily, or by the court – thus ending the litigation. The matter may proceed to trial, and a judge may enter judgment upon a jury’s verdict. Of course, the majority of cases are ultimately settled out of court (and many others are settled without formal litigation ever having been filed). But what happens when a settlement agreement is not honored? What recourse does someone have when they don’t get the benefit of the bargain into which they entered?

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff originally filed suit against the defendant back in 1998. Although the court’s opinion did not disclose the exact nature of the dispute between the parties, the dispute was apparently settled through some type of mediation that occurred in 2002. As part of the settlement, the defendant signed a “confession of judgment” in the amount of $350,000 plus post-judgment interest. In exchange, the plaintiff released all of his claims and dismissed his case with prejudice.

South Carolina Court Appeals Court Dismisses Negligence/Outrage Claim Against Military College by Alleged Victim of Sexual Abuse

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

In a South Carolina personal injury case, the plaintiff must be able to prove negligence in order to recover damages. This requires proof of four distinct elements: duty of care, breach of duty, actual/proximate causation, and damages.

In negligence cases, the jury typically resolves factual issues, but the trial court judge has the task of resolving questions of law. Whether or not a defendant owed a duty of care in a particular situation is usually a legal question for the court to resolve. If the court finds that there was a duty of care owed to the defendant by the plaintiff, the issue of whether that duty was, in fact, breached falls to the jury in most cases.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Federal Court Addresses Pre-Trial Evidentiary Issues in Negligence Lawsuit by Injured Worker – Quarterman v. Spirit Line Cruises, LLC

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

The litigation of a personal injury case can be protracted and sometimes complex. Many issues can arise, and the parties may disagree at every possible juncture. It is then up to the trial judge to decide the various pre-trial, trial, and post-trial issues that arise.

A recent federal case sheds some light on some of the pre-trial issues that may come up in a personal injury case.

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.

$2.5 Billion Defective Hip Replacement Settlement

Published on: December 31, 2013 | by Patrick E. Knie

Johnson and Johnson has agreed to a massive $2.5 billion settlement regarding their DePuy ASR metal on metal hip replacements. There are two key deadlines. The first is a Jauary 6th, 2014 deadline to register your case. The second is a April 1, 2014 deadline to opt-in to the settlement. There is much work to do for each deadline, so you should contact an attorney IMMEDIATELY! Qualified patients will receive a base award of $ 250,000. Although lawsuits continue involving mayother metal on metal hip replacements such as Biomet M2A Magnum, DePuy Pinnacle, Smith & Nephew, Stryker Rejuvenate, Stryker ABGII Modular Neck System, Wright Conserve, Wright Profemur, and Zimmer, those are not included in this settlement. If you have questions call Patrick E. Knie Attorney tol free at 1-866-665-4995.