South Carolina Lawyers Weekly
Machin v. Carus Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-080-15, 9 pp.) (Joseph Anderson Jr., J.) 3:12-cv-02675; D.S.C.
Holding: Where plaintiff was injured at work by exposure to a third party’s chemicals, South Carolina law is unclear as to whether the third party should be able to argue the empty chair defense (as to plaintiff’s employer) and what the jury should be told about workers’ compensation.
The court certifies four questions to the South Carolina Supreme Court:
1. Under South Carolina law, when a plaintiff seeks recovery from a person, other than his employer, for an injury sustained on the job, may the jury hear an explanation of why the employer is not part of the instant action?
2. Under South Carolina law, when a plaintiff seeks recovery from a person, other than his employer, for an injury sustained on the job, may a defendant argue the empty chair defense and suggest that plaintiff’s employer is the wrongdoer?
3. In connection with Question 2, if a defendant retains the right to argue the empty chair defense against plaintiff’s employer, may a court instruct the jury that an employer’s legal responsibility has been determined by another forum, specifically, the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission?
4. Under South Carolina law, when a plaintiff seeks recovery from a person, other than his employer, for an injury sustained on the job, may the court allow the jury to apportion fault against the nonparty employer by placing the name of the employer on the verdict form?
