Campbell v. Robinson Even though ownership of an engagement ring is not premised on who was at fault for ending the engagement, since defendant presented evidence that, after the parties broke up, plaintiff told her to keep the ring, plaintiff was not entitled to a directed verdict on his claims for declaratory judgment and claim and delivery. However, the jury charge’s focus on “fault” entitles plaintiff to a new trial.
White v. United States Plaintiff’s claims for loss of consortium and wrongful death are separate and distinct. Only a spouse may bring a loss of consortium claim, while any heirs to an estate may be the beneficiaries of a wrongful death award.
Grier v. AMISUB of South Carolina, Inc. Read together, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-79-125(A) and 15-36-100 require a medical malpractice plaintiff to file a notice of her intent to file suit, including an affidavit of an expert witness as to the defendant’s breach of the standard of care. The expert’s affidavit need not address proximate cause at the pre-filing stage.
Ragin v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. of GA Contrary to defendants’ argument, Yost v. City of Charleston (D.S.C. Nov. 24, 2009) does not stand for the proposition that a plaintiff may not sue co-workers for a defamatory statement made in connection with the plaintiff’s termination if the statements were made within the course and scope of their employment.
Sluder v. United Insurance Co. of America After removal to this court, plaintiff amended his complaint once without seeking remand to state court. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, it is not hard to believe that plaintiff could claim to have been defamed without knowing exactly who defamed him.
Cadence Bank, N.A. v. Horry Properties, LLC After defendant Horry Properties learned that the plaintiff-bank was foreclosing on its Clay County, North Carolina property, Horry Properties transferred its only remaining assets to defendant M&M Builders for scant consideration, leaving Horry Properties insolvent.
Knott v. Deese In this products liability case, plaintiff lost two fingers when they were caught in the “pinch point” between the handrail and open gate of a pontoon boat in Arizona. Plaintiff is suing the corporation that bought the assets of the manufacturer of the boat’s finger-pinch guard.
MRR Southern, LLC v. Citizens for Marlboro County Where defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements were made in direct response to the public controversy surrounding the proposed placement of a landfill in Marlboro County, public debate gave rise to the statements.
Where (1) plaintiff hired a public relations firm to send a mailer to all Marlboro County residents in which plaintiff trumpeted the economic benefits of its proposed landfill; (2) the controversy regarding the proposed landfill was well-known in 2007, long before the 2008 and 2009 publication dates of the allegedly defamatory communications...
Miles v. DESA Heating LLC Plaintiffs’ expert testified that, during his testing of the heater involved in this incident, he observed a flame extending about an inch beyond the heater’s guard. The senior product engineer for the heater stated that, if the flame extended beyond the guard, the heater would not be in compliance with the defendant-manufacturer’s safety standards and would be a defective product.
Morris v. Kmart Corp. If plaintiff were pursuing her products liability claim pursuant to a design defect theory, expert testimony would be required to prove her case; however, since plaintiff is proceeding under a manufacturing defect theory, expert testimony is not required. Plaintiff’s failure to submit an expert witness report is not fatal to her claim.
Next Page »
