• 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.

Products Liability

Jackson v. Bermuda Sands, Inc., 383 S.C. 11, 677 S.E.2d 612 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4530, decided April 14, 2009.

A hotel patron was injured when a chair in the hotel’s indoor pool area collapsed as he attempted to sit in it. He subsequently filed this action against the hotel and the chair’s alleged manufacturer. The hotel settled with the patron and was removed from the case, which proceeded against the manufacturer. The manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the patron had failed to prove the second and third elements of products liability claims because he could not show that the collapsed chair was defective or that the chair, when it collapsed, was in the same condition as when it left the manufacturer.

Moore v. Barony House Restaurant, LLC, 382 S.C. 35, 674 S.E.2d 500 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4480, decided March 3, 2009.

The driver of a golf cart was killed in a collision with an SUV while driving the golf cart, which was not equipped with lights, on a public highway at night. Representatives of the driver’s estate sued the golf cart’s manufacturer, asserting strict liability on the grounds that the golf cart was unreasonably dangerous in light of its foreseeable use and negligence on the grounds that the manufacturer failed to warn against nighttime operation on public roads. The trial court granted summary judgment for the manufacturer and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the because the risk of operating an unlighted golf cart on a public highway at night was open and obvious, the golf cart was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and the manufacturer had no duty to warn against the potential hazards of the driver’s conduct.

Laffitte v. Bridgestone Corp., 381 S.C. 460, 674 S.E.2d 154 (2009).
Opinion No. 26606, decided March 2, 2009.

A vehicle was involved in a fatal accident after the tread of its left rear tire separated from the tire, allegedly causing the vehicle to roll over. In the products liability action that followed, the plaintiffs sought to compel the defendant tire manufacturer to reveal its proprietary skim stock formula used in manufacturing tires. The trial court ordered the manufacturer to reveal the formula, and the manufacturer sought immediate review by the South Carolina Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction. The court found that the circumstances justified the rare immediate review of a discovery order and subsequently reversed the trial court. The court held that a three-part balancing test that incorporates a “relevant and necessary” standard governs the discovery of trade secrets. The information sought must be relevant not only to the general subject matter of the litigation but also to the specific issues involved in the litigation. Moreover, the party seeking the information must demonstrate with specificity how the lack of the information presents a real, unjust threat to the party’s presentation of its case on the merits. Applying these principles, the court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery of the manufacturer’s skim stock formula.

Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 999 (2008).
Docket No. 06-179, decided February 20, 2008.

The plaintiff and his wife brought this action against the manufacturer of a heart catheter which ruptured in the plaintiff’s coronary artery during heart surgery. They asserted various causes of action alleging that the device violated New York’s common law regarding products liability. The district court and the Second Circuit held that the plaintiff’s state law claims were pre-empted by the federal Medical Device Amendments (MDA), which contains an express pre-emption provision prohibiting states from establishing medical device standards different from those imposed by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulatory scheme under the MDA. The United States Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the MDA’s pre-emption clause bars common law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device, such as the catheter at issue in this case, marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the FDA.

 

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.