• 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 recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. Updates are presented chronologically below. To sort by Practice Area, select a Practice Area from the menu at left.

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

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.

Robbins v. Walgreens and Broadspire Services, Inc., 375 S.C. 259, 652 S.E.2d 90 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4291, decided August 24, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

The plaintiff suffered a workplace injury and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits. He later applied for additional benefits based on a change of condition under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-17-90, which occurs when a claimant experiences a change in physical condition after the first award but as a result of the original injury. The Workers’ Compensation Commission denied the claim, and on appeal the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the commission’s decision.

International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. China Const. America (SC) Inc., 375 S.C. 175, 650 S.E.2d 677 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4288, decided August 21, 2007.
Practice Areas: Fidelity & Surety Law

A contractor sued a subcontractor and its surety for damages caused by the subcontractor’s breach of contract. On the day of trial, the subcontractor failed to appear and the contractor consented to the surety’s dismissal from the case. Upon conclusion of the trial against the subcontractor, the trial court awarded the contractor over $650,000 in damages. The contractor then sought and was granted summary judgment against the surety for the full amount of the judgment against the subcontractor. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for the contractor because in South Carolina a judgment against a principal is binding and conclusive on the surety absent fraud or collusion or lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that the contractor was not estopped to enforce the judgment against the surety simply because it consented to the dismissal of the surety at trial.

Hansson v. Scalise Builders of South Carolina, 374 S.C. 352, 650 S.E.2d 68 (2007).
Opinion No. 26369, decided August 13, 2007.
Practice Areas: Personal Injury

The plaintiff alleged various causes of action against a former employer, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, for demeaning remarks made during his employment regarding his homosexuality. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that when ruling on summary judgment motions, a court must consider whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case as to each element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the court upheld summary judgment because even if reasonable minds could differ as to whether the defendant’s conduct was “extreme or outrageous,” the plaintiff failed to show that he suffered “severe” emotional distress.

 

Archives
April 2009
March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009
December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008
September 2008 | August 2008 | July 2008
June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008
March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008
December 2007 | November 2007 | October 2007
September 2007 | August 2007 | July 2007
June 2007 | May 2007 | April 2007
March 2007 | February 2007 | January 2007

 

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.