Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Tiffanie Rutland (Tiffanie) was killed when the car in which she was riding rolled over and fell on top of her after she was partially ejected. This case presented the novel issue of whether "pre-impact fear" should have been recognized as a cognizable element of damages in a survival action. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals that pre-impact fear was not compensable. Finding no evidence of conscious pain and suffering under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court reserved judgment on this question and affirmed as modified. View "Rutland v. SCDOT" on Justia Law

In this wrongful death and survival action involving a train collision, Appellant Connie Carson as personal representative of the estate of Beryl Harvey, argued on appeal that the circuit court erroneously excluded certain evidence, charged the jury, and permitted an inconsistent verdict in the survival action. Upon review of the circuit court's ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the court's evidentiary determinations and jury charge, but reversed the circuit court's decision denying Appellant's request for a new trial nisi additur and remanded the survival action for a new trial. View "Carson v. CSX Transportation" on Justia Law

After finding a card for flowers for another woman in her husband’s car, Petitioner Gail Jennings confronted him. Respondent M. Lee Jennings confessed he had fallen in love with someone else, and although he refused to divulge her name, he admitted the two had been corresponding via e-mail for some time. Gail confided this situation to her daughter-in-law, Petitioner Holly Broome. Broome had previously worked for Jennings and knew he maintained a personal Yahoo! e-mail account. She accessed his account by guessing the correct answers to his security questions and read the e-mails exchanged between Jennings and his paramour. Broome then printed out copies of the incriminating e-mails and gave them to Thomas Neal, Gail’s attorney in the divorce proceedings, and Brenda Cooke, a private investigator Gail hired. Broome was sued civilly for hacking Lee Jennings' Yahoo! e-mail account. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Broome on all claims, including violation of the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court of appeals reversed, finding that the e-mails she obtained from hacking Jennings' account were in electronic storage and thus covered by the SCA. The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. After opening them, Jennings left the single copies of his e-mails on the Yahoo! server and apparently did not download them or save another copy of them in any other location. The Court therefore declined to hold that retaining an opened e-mail constitutes "storing it for backup protection" under the Act. "We emphasize that although we reject the contention that Broome's actions [gave] rise to a claim under the SCA, this should in no way be read as condoning her behavior. Instead, we only hold that she is not liable under the SCA because the e-mails in question do not meet the definition of 'electronic storage' under the Act." View "Jennings v. Jennings" on Justia Law

Frank Hutson was working as a crane operator for the State Ports Authority when he suffered an injury to his lower back and legs while attempting to remove a container from a ship. He was diagnosed with a disc bulge for which he was treated with steroid injections, physical therapy, and used a back brace. After reaching maximum medical improvement, he filed a Form 50 with the workers' compensation commission for continued benefits alleging permanent and total disability pursuant to Sections 42-9-10 and 42-9-30 South Carolina Code (1976 & Supp. 2011) or, alternatively, a wage loss under Section 42-9-20. He also asked to receive the award in lump sum. Although the Ports Authority and its insurance carrier, the State Accident Fund (collectively, Respondents), admitted the accident and the back injury, they disputed the claims to his legs and argued he should receive only permanent partial disability benefits. They also objected to Hutson's request that his benefits be paid in a lump sum. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether speculative testimony by the claimant concerning his possible future work as a restaurateur qualified as substantial evidence to establish he did not sustain a wage loss pursuant to Section 42-9-20 of the South Carolina Code (1976). The Court held it did not, and therefore reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hutson v. SC State Ports Authority" on Justia Law

India Graves, a six-month-old girl, died while being monitored by one of CAS Medical Systems' products. India's parents, Kareem and Tara Graves, subsequently filed a products liability lawsuit against CAS, contending the monitor was defectively designed and failed to alert them when India's heart rate and breathing slowed. The circuit court granted CAS's motion to exclude all of the Graves' expert witnesses and accordingly granted CAS summary judgment. The Graves appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the Graves' computer experts. While the court did err in excluding one doctor's testimony, the Graves were still left with no expert opinions regarding any defects in the monitor. In the absence of this evidence, CAS was entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly the Court affirmed the circuit court. View "Graves v. CAS Medical Systems" on Justia Law

Margaret Mims (Mims), as guardian ad litem for her son Edward, filed a complaint against the Babcock Center and others alleging Edward sustained physical injuries and was mistreated while under their care. The circuit court dismissed the complaint based on issues related to timeliness of service and the application of S.C. Code Ann. 15-3-20(B) (2005). Mims appealed. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court concluded the trial court erred in finding Mims's amended complaint should have been dismissed for failure to serve it within 120 days of filing the original complaint. Moreover, the Court agreed with Mims that, contrary to Defendants' assertion, Rule 15(a), SCRCP does allow the filing and service of an amended complaint without leave of court, even if the original complaint has not been served, because a party may amend her pleadings once without leave of court before a responsive pleading is served, and no responsive pleading had been served by Defendants prior to Mims's service of the amended complaint. To the extent the trial court found an alleged absence of proper service resulted in a lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and a failure to prosecute, the Court reversed these findings as they were premised on the perceived error regarding service. View "Mims v. Babcock Center" on Justia Law

Petitioner Monica Weston purchased a pair of prescription decorative, colored contact lenses without a prescription from Respondent Kim's Dollar Store, an unauthorized seller. The lenses were manufactured by Respondent CIBA Vision (CIBA). Petitioner developed an eye infection which led to the loss of vision in her left eye. Thereafter, Petitioner brought an action against the store and CIBA alleging six causes of action. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of CIBA as to three of the six causes of action based on federal preemption, and the court of appeals affirmed. On certiorari, Petitioner conceded the lenses she purchased were Class III medical devices but argued her claims were not preempted because CIBA failed to show the lenses were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the pre-market approval (PMA) process. Upon review of the record of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the lenses were FDA approved through the PMA process. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the court of appeals to the extent partial summary judgment was granted on claims that would impose common-law requirements "different from, or in addition to" applicable FDA requirements. As to the remaining causes of action, the Court remanded for further proceedings.

Cathy Bone filed a workers' compensation claim form (Form 50) dated August 7, 2007 alleging that she injured her back on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 while employed with U.S. Food Service. Her job consisted of power washing and cleaning the insides of truck trailers that transported food. Bone alleged that she hurt her back when she lifted two pallets inside a trailer to clean under them. She did not report the incident immediately because she needed to continue working and thought she would be okay, but thereafter she developed increasing pain. On Tuesday, July 3, 2007, Bone reported the injury to one of her supervisors shortly after she arrived at work. The same morning she reported her injury, Bone had a flat tire on her way to work, and she called in to advise her office of this fact. The employer, U.S. Food Service, and its carrier, Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America denied Bone's claim, disputing that she had injured her back on June 26 and asserting the injury occurred when her tire was changed on July 3. The employer and its carrier appealed the circuit court's order that determined the employee's claim was compensable and remanded the matter to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as interlocutory. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision.

South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. (Farm Bureau) brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether Henry Kennedy was entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for an accident. The trial court found Kennedy was entitled to UIM coverage under the terms of the policy because Kennedy was "upon" and thus "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted Kennedy's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision. Initially, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's finding of actual physical contact was supported by the evidence. The trial court found Kennedy had left the engine running on his employer's vehicle; that he was in physical contact with the covered vehicle (with his hand on the truck) when the other vehicle careened towards him, forcing him to relinquish his contact in order to attempt to avoid injury; that Kennedy was "upon" and "occupying" the vehicle at the time of the accident; and he was entitled to UIM coverage under the Farm Bureau policy. Moreover, a second, resultant physical contact was established when Kennedy was pinned against the insured vehicle. The Supreme Court concluded that a requirement that an insured remain in physical contact with the insured vehicle in the face of imminent danger was unreasonable and unconscionable. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner Mark Fountain brought this action for defamation based on a statement by Thomas C. Ewart, chief banking officer for Respondent First Reliance Bank, as to why the bank would not make a loan on a business venture between Fountain and Ernest Pennell. With at least some of Fountain's financial background known to Pennell, Fountain and Pennell approached First Reliance to request funds after two other lending institutions denied their loan requests. At this point in time, Ewart called Pennell in for a meeting to discuss the matter. Fountain was not present. At that meeting, Ewart stated that First Reliance would not be making the loan if Fountain was involved in the business. Pennell subsequently relayed Ewart's statement to Fountain, and told him to "tear up" the agreement between the two of them. Fountain later requested Pennell to meet him at his lawyer's office, where Pennell repeated the statement in front of Fountain's attorney. Fountain filed a complaint against First Reliance, Ewart, and Pennell for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. All three defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motions, finding the statement was not defamatory, the publication of the statement was privileged, and no intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was established. Fountain appeals only the grant of summary judgment in favor of First Reliance and Ewart on his defamation claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Ewart's statement was not defamatory, and even if it was, a qualified privilege existed in this case. As there was no evidence that this privilege was abused by Respondents, summary judgment was proper.