South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

South Carolina Supreme Court Holds that Insurance Company Had No Duty to Offer UIM Coverage Despite Modifications to Motorcycle Accident Policy

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In an ideal world, every consumer would have a thorough understanding of the many different types of car, truck, and motorcycle insurance that may be available to them and be able to make an informed decision about coverage.

Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a South Carolina motor vehicle accident to make people realize that they don’t know as much as they thought that they did about their insurance coverage – and that they don’t have nearly as much coverage as they thought they had.

Realizing that the “full coverage insurance” that you thought you had does not include optional coverage like uninsured motorist coverage can be a very unpleasant discovery, especially if you have been hurt by someone else’s negligence and have medical bills mounting up due to the wreck.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Says Workers’ Compensation Appellate Panel Should Have Made More Detailed Findings On Issue of Whether Alleged “Dependent” Was Entitled to Death Benefits

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Usually, the claimant in a South Carolina workers’ compensation case is a worker who was injured on the job. The “injury” may be a result of an accident, repetitive or cumulative trauma, or even a work-related illness.

When a worker dies as a result of an accident for which he or she would otherwise be entitled to collect workers’ compensation benefits, his or her surviving spouse and dependents – as those terms are specifically defined under South Carolina’s workers’ compensation statutes – may be entitled to death benefits.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Court Holds that Bigamous “Husband” Could Not Share in Wrongful Death Settlement Proceeds

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Most South Carolina wrongful death cases focus on whether the defendant is liable for the death of the plaintiff’s loved ones, but some cases have a different issue – such as the question of who is entitled to share in the proceeds of a settlement entered in the case by the agreement of the parties.

Family relationships matter very much to such determinations, as does strict compliance with the law when it comes to issues such as what constitutes a valid marriage.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Supreme Court Says Notice Issue in a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Should Be Reviewed Under “Substantial Evidence” Standard

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

If you have been hurt in a work-related accident, you may be putting off the formal filing of your South Carolina workers’ compensation claim, hoping your employer will “do the right thing” or that your injury will improve on its own. It is very important that you take action to protect your legal rights sooner, rather than later, since the process of pursuing a work injury claim can sometimes be very difficult and time-consuming, and failing to take timely action can even result in a complete bar to recovery in some cases.

Unfortunately, it is not unusual for an employer to deny a workers’ compensation claim on the grounds that the employee was not hurt in the course and scope of his or her employment, that an injury was pre-existing, or that the employee did not give timely notice of his or her injury.

As a recent case illustrates, there are many potential steps to receiving workers’ compensation benefits when an employer resists paying a claim. The sooner the injured worker files his or her claim, the sooner his or her attorney can get to work on holding the employer accountable for what is owed.

Trial Court Should Have Reviewed Documents Related to Settling Defendant’s Agreement in Order to Determine Set Off, According to South Carolina Court of Appeals

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a South Carolina personal injury lawsuit, it is not unusual for several individuals, businesses, or governmental entities to be named as defendants. By the time the trial rolls around, however, there may be significantly fewer defendants – perhaps, only one.

The reasons for this are numerous. Some defendants may have been dismissed from the lawsuit by the trial court on a motion for summary judgment. Others may have been voluntarily dismissed from the case by the plaintiff(s) for strategic reasons. A settlement may have occurred that dismissed some defendants from the lawsuit while retaining others.

If the reason for the dwindling number of defendants is a settlement, a question sometimes arises as to the nature and extent of the information about that settlement to which the remaining defendants are entitled.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration in Lawsuit by Representative of Deceased Rehabilitation Facility Patient

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In recent years, there has been a trend toward alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration, in some kinds of cases, including South Carolina nursing home abuse cases.

It is important to note that the reason for this trend is not because injured individuals or the families of those who have suffered a wrongful death have willingly and knowingly decided that they would rather have their legal disputes resolved by an arbitrator rather than by a judge and jury. Instead, many would-be defendants have managed to sneak arbitration clauses into the mounds of documents that must be signed at certain health care facilities. Fortunately, not all such alleged “agreements” are enforceable by the courts.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Supreme Court Revisits Wrongful Death Lawsuit Arising from Security Officer’s Pursuit of Shoplifting Suspect

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Proving a case of negligence in a South Carolina car accident case is a four-step process. In order for the defendant to be held liable, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff was harmed, and that there was a link of proximate causation between the breach of duty and the injuries.

If any of the elements is missing, the plaintiff cannot recover money damages against the defendant. Sometimes, disputes arise regarding the admissibility of evidence that the plaintiff proposes to submit on one or more of these issues. When this happens, it is up to the trial court to determine the admissibility of the evidence. If the opposing party so desires, he or she has the option of appealing the trial court’s ruling.

Facts of the Case

Appellate Court Rules that Disabled Man’s Negligence Claim Against South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs Should Have Survived Summary Judgment

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Those who are confined to nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are extremely vulnerable. While it would be nice to believe that these individuals are given the care and treatment that they need and deserve, this is not always so.

Unfortunately, South Carolina nursing home negligence and medical malpractice lawsuits are so commonplace as to barely raise an eyebrow these days. While such litigation cannot undo the harm that was done, sizable settlements and jury verdicts can send a powerful message – a message that may result in better care for those in such facilities in the future.

Facts of the Case

Patient’s Claim Against Psychiatrist and Medical Center Was Not Barred by South Carolina Statute of Repose as a Matter of Law

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Although there are several deadlines that may apply in South Carolina medical malpractice lawsuits, one of the most important is the statute of limitations. Claims not filed within the limitations period are usually dismissed, regardless of the merits of the plaintiff’s case. While there are a few exceptions, only cases that fit the very narrow exceptions set forth by statute and case law will survive a late-filed complaint.

Another important deadline to note is the statute of repose. While the statute of limitations gives an injured person a certain amount of time to seek legal relief following the discovery of an act of malpractice, the statute of repose puts a limit on the time that a plaintiff has to file suit after the actual act of negligence, regardless of when the plaintiff discovered the mistake.

Facts of the Case

Federal District Court Dismisses Defendant in South Carolina Product Liability Case Due to Lack of Successor Liability

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

South Carolina product liability lawsuits can be complicated. Not only must the plaintiff prove the elements of negligence, strict liability, or another legal theory of liability, but he or she must also track down the manufacturer, seller, or another party that can be held responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries under South Carolina law – before the running of the statute of limitations (and statute of repose).

Given the frequency with which businesses change hands nowadays, this can be a difficult task. Products made in other countries can present additional issues.

Facts of the Case