Quantcast
Home (page 7)

Tag Archives: Tort/Negligence

Tort/Negligence – Civil Practice – Jurisdiction – Appeals – Abu Ghraib – Torture (access required)

Shimari v. CACI Int’l Inc. On rehearing en banc, the 4th Circuit says it has no jurisdiction to consider appeals by Iraqis who were detained and tortured at Abu Ghraib military prison and elsewhere and whose tort claims against defendant government contractors were partly dismissed by federal courts.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Breach of Promise to Marry – Engagement Ring – Ownership (access required)

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.

Read More »

Labor & Employment – Tort/Negligence – Fraud – Breach of Contract – Job Interview Representations – Unjustifiable Reliance (access required)

Finney v. Lincare, Inc. Plaintiff has failed to show that false statements were made to her during her job interviews; in any event, since plaintiff was given documents setting out the true terms of her employment contract, her reliance on the interview statements was not justified. The defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Read More »

Civil Rights – Search & Seizure – Tort/Negligence – Trespass & Assault — Bail Bondsman – No Qualified Immunity (access required)

Gregg v. Ham A bail bondsman pursuing a fugitive in his home neighborhood must pay $100,000 to a disabled woman whose home the bondsman surveilled and searched; the 4th Circuit says the bail bondsman is not entitled to qualified immunity from the woman’s § 1983 claim and the district court did not err in submitting the immunity issue to the jury.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Medical Malpractice – Civil Practice – Pre-Filing Affidavit – Breach – Proximate Cause (access required)

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.

Read More »

Civil Rights – Private Company – Policy or Custom – Municipal – Tort/Negligence — Assault & Battery (access required)

Kinard v. City of Greenville Plaintiff does not identify a specific policy or custom of defendant American Services, Inc. pursuant to which defendant Mills acted when he allegedly assaulted plaintiff. Nor does plaintiff allege a direct causal link between any such policy or custom and his injuries. Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a claim against American Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Read More »

Banks & Banking – Real Property – Mortgages – Pay-Off – Failure to Mark Satisfied – Tort/Negligence (access required)

Bryan v. Community Resource Mortgage, Inc. There is no question that the plaintiff-debtor paid his debt and that the defendant-bank failed to mark his mortgage satisfied within three months (it waited nine years). Where plaintiff has identified a specific bank employee, who he contends specifically represented that the July 31, 2002 mortgage would be satisfied by a subsequent loan the bank made on Aug. 2, 2002, and where this contention, including the existence of the employee, is supported by the loan closing documents, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff has made out a claim under S.C. Code Ann. § 29-3-320.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Defamation – Labor & Employment – Wrongful Termination – Civil Practice – Federal Jurisdiction – Diversity – Supervisors (access required)

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.

Read More »