• Alternative Dispute Resolution
  
• Appellate
  
• Banking
  
• Bankruptcy
  
• Business Litigation
  
• Church Law
  
• Collections
  
• Construction Law
  
• Contract Law
  
• Corporate Law
  
• Estate Planning
  
• Fidelity & Surety Law
  
• Hospital and Medical
  Malpractice Defense
  
• Insurance Coverage
  
• Landlord - Tenant
  
• Legal Malpractice Defense
  
• Litigation
  
• Mechanic’s Liens
  
• Military Law
  
• Nursing Home Liability Defense
  
• Personal Injury
  
• Premises Liability
  
• Products Liability
  
• Probate Law
  
• Professional Liability
  
• Real Estate
  
• Retirement Plans
  
• Taxation
  
• Workers’ Compensation

This page is a compilation of some of the recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. To check for updates in your area of interest, simply click on the Practice Area to your left.

Premises Liability

Padgett v. Colleton County, 383 S.C. 431, 679 S.E.2d 533 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4542, decided May 6, 2009.

The plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell in a hole on the grounds of the Colleton County Courthouse. He filed this premises liability suit against the county, but at the close of his case-in-chief, the trial court granted a directed verdict for the county. The trial court found that the dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff’s fall was open and obvious and that the county could not be liable for a landscaper’s failure to erect caution tape around the dangerous area. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial judge improperly weighed competing evidence on the issue of whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious and that even if the condition was open and obvious, the jury could have found that the county should have anticipated the harm. The court further held that the jury could have found that the county negligently failed to properly supervise landscaping work performed on the premises.

Pringle v. SLR Inc. of Summerton, 382 S.C. 397, 675 S.E.2d 783 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4513, decided February 27, 2009.

A restaurant patron was injured when her chair collapsed, causing her to fall to the floor. She subsequently filed this negligence action against the restaurant. After the depositions of the restaurant owner and the plaintiff’s expert, the restaurant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence that the restaurant created, was aware of, or should have been aware of the allegedly dangerous condition. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a spoliation inference derived from the restaurant’s disposal of the collapsed chair because she could not show that the chair would have provided any additional information indicating that its use at the restaurant would have constituted negligence.

Hancock v. Mid-South Management Co., 381 S.C. 326, 673 S.E.2d 801 (2009).
Opinion No. 26587, decided January 26, 2009.

The plaintiff slipped and fell in the parking lot of The Newberry Observer and subsequently filed this negligence action against the newspaper’s owner. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to maintain safe premises, though she could not identify the exact cause of her fall. The trial court found that a change in elevation in the parking lot caused the plaintiff’s fall, but granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the grounds that the change in elevation either was not a dangerous condition or was so open and obvious that the defendant had no duty to warn of it. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that testimony and affidavits submitted by the plaintiff showed that the parking lot was in a state of disrepair. The court held that when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence showed that the defendant knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed on its premises and that invitees would have to encounter this condition. Thus, it was for a jury to decide whether the danger was open and obvious or whether the defendant should have anticipated that the danger might cause an invitee to fall and suffer injury.

Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 659 S.E.2d 196 (Ct. App. 2008).
Opinion No. 4346, decided February 25, 2008.

The plaintiff filed this action seeking damages from the defendants for injuries he sustained from a raccoon bite while on the defendants’ property. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed. First, the court found that the plaintiff was a licensee on the defendants’ property rather than an invitee, and therefore the defendants had no duty to warn the plaintiff of any hidden and latent dangers posed by the raccoon. Second, the court also found that there was no issue of material fact as to the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries because the plaintiff entered the property and attempted to capture the raccoon despite being warned not to try and catch the raccoon by himself. Finally, the court found that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk because he freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger, even admitting that his actions were “pretty stupid,” and thus he was more than 50% at fault in causing his injuries.

Henson v. International Paper Co., 374 S.C. 375, 650 S.E.2d 74 (2007).
Opinion No. 26374, decided August 27, 2007.

The “attractive nuisance” doctrine is an exception to the general rule that property owners have no obligation to protect trespassers from injury. It requires property owners who maintain artificial conditions on the property which attract the attention and curiosity of children to take reasonable steps to prevent the condition from causing injury to children. In this case, a ten-year-old boy went onto the defendant’s property and drowned while playing in a diversion canal. The boy’s guardian brought a wrongful death action against the defendant, alleging that the canal was an attractive nuisance. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the artificial condition need not have attracted the child onto the property in order to hold the property owner liable under a theory of attractive nuisance. Furthermore, the court expressly adopted § 339 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and held that future premises liability cases brought by or on behalf of child trespassers should be decided in accordance with the principles outlined in that section.

Shelton v. LS & K, Inc., 374 S.C. 294, 648 S.E.2d 307 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4268, decided June 28, 2007.

The plaintiff was struck by a car while crossing the driveway of a fast food restaurant on a sidewalk, allegedly because a tree obstructed the view of the car’s driver. The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for the restaurant because the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony as to how the driveway and parking lot of the restaurant should have been designed and thus failed to establish the required standard of care. Furthermore, the court reiterated the principle that landowners have no duty to warn of open and obvious conditions, and because the plaintiff did not introduce any evidence showing that the tree’s placement created an unreasonably dangerous condition, she failed to meet her burden of proving the duty of care.

Estate of Adair v. L-J, Inc., 372 S.C. 372 S.C. 154, 641 S.E.2d 63 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4201, decided January 29, 2007.

The issue in this wrongful death suit was the status of a group of teenagers who, after consuming alcohol, went joyriding on a large tract of undeveloped commercial property. The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the trial court ruling that the teens were trespassers—persons “whose presence is neither invited nor suffered”—because the owners of the property had taken virtually all reasonable measures to keep uninvited persons off the property.

 



Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP makes this information available as a service to its clients and friends. This information is not a solicitation or an effort to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney to determine if it is applicable to a specific legal need.