South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

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.

South Carolina-Based Healthcare System Resolves False Claims Act Case with Feds After $237 Million Verdict

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

The whistleblower provisions of the federal False Claims Act, codified at U.S.C.A. § 3729-3733, are based on the premise that those on the inside often have the best information about illegal acts and fraud. The Act has been around for a long time, having been enacted during the Civil War to combat fraud by suppliers of goods purchased by the Union during the war.

The Act has been amended several times over its 150 years of existence. In its current form, it provides for the filing of qui tam actions – lawsuits by private individuals suing on behalf of the government. Individuals filing lawsuits are called “relators” and can be rewarded handsomely for their efforts, if the suit is successful, via a share of the recovery obtained on the government’s behalf.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Decertifies Would-Be Class Action Lawsuit Against Insurance Companies – Smith v. Progressive Halcyon Insurance Company

Published on: October 9, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

Class action lawsuits can be very useful in that they allow a large group of people with similar legal disputes to bring their claims in a single lawsuit, thus reducing litigation costs and encouraging judicial economy.

In order to proceed as a class, the would-be class representative(s) must obtain the permission of the court. In South Carolina state courts, a plaintiff must proceed under South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 23, which establishes the requirements for class certification.

According to Rule 23, a class action may proceed if the court finds that the class contains so many members that joinder would be impractical, there are common questions of law or fact, the plaintiff’s claims are representative, the plaintiff would fairly and adequately represent the class, and the amount in controversy is at least $100 per class member (unless injunctive or declaratory relief is sought).

South Carolina’s Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Was Not Tolled, Despite Alleged Victim’s Mental Incapacity – Sims v. Amisub of South Carolina, Inc.

Published on: September 18, 2015 | by Patrick E. Knie

The importance of the statute of limitations – the deadline for filing a lawsuit – cannot be overemphasized. If a case is not filed in a timely fashion, there can be no recovery unless the circumstances fit into a very small number of exceptions.

In the recent case of Sims v. Amisub of South Carolina, the plaintiff was the duly appointed guardian and conservator of a ward who had allegedly been hurt as a result of the medical negligence of the defendant medical center and doctor in 2003. Unfortunately, the conservator’s suit was not filed until 2009.

$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 ›