|
|
South Carolina Statute Imposing Strict Tort Liability on Sellers of Defective Products
Summaries of Published Opinions by Product Liability Group
Simmons v. Mark Lift Industries, Inc., 366 S.C. 308, 622 S.E.2d 213 (S.C. 2005).
A worker brought a products liability action against a manufacturer of a scissor lift and a company that purchased the manufacturer’s assets at a bankruptcy sale. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may maintain a product liability claim under a successor liability theory against a defendant when there are one or more other viable product liability defendants. The status and availability of other potential defendants is irrelevant in determining the issue of a successor corporation’s liability in a product liability action. David M. Collins of Buist Moore Smythe McGee, P.A., for Amicus Curiae, for the Products Liability Council, Inc.
Hospitality Management Associates, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company, 356 S.C. 644, 591 S.E.2d 611 (S.C. 2004).
Building owners brought an action against manufacturers of resin utilized in the manufacture of polybutylene plumbing systems, alleging that the manufacturers falsely represented that the plumbing systems were of high quality and reliable, when in fact the resins would degrade when exposed to chemicals in water. The circuit court granted manufacturer summary judgment based on settlements entered into in class actions in foreign jurisdictions. The building owners appealed. The main issue on appeal was whether two nationwide class action settlements approved by the Alabama and Tennessee state courts are entitled to full faith and credit, thereby precluding appellants- as absent class members who did not opt out- from proceeding with this action. The crucial sub-issue of that question was what is the appropriate scope of collateral review that should be given to the rendering courts’ final decisions approving the settlements. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the trial court decision findings that a limited scope of review is proper, and the due process issues were fully and fairly litigated; and therefore, the final settlements were entitled to full faith and credit. Henry B. Smythe, Jr., and David B. McCormack represented respondent E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company.
Farmer v. Monsanto Corp., S.C. Supr. Ct. Op. No. 25617 (filed April 7, 2003). BMSM served as local counsel for amicus curiae the Product Liability Advisory Counsel ("PLAC") in a critical case interpreting South Carolina's "Door Closing Statute." At issue was whether the Door Closing Statute, which prohibits non-residents from suing foreign corporations in South Carolina based on claims arising outside South Carolina, could be circumvented in a class action involving just one South Carolinian. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that all members of a class must be residents of South Carolina in order to participate in a class action against a foreign corporation based on events occuring outside South Carolina. The effect of this decision is to prevent South Carolina from becoming a nationwide class action forum. Henry B. Smythe, Jr., Julius H. Hines
Barnwell v. Barber-Coleman Co., 393 S.E.2d 162 (S.C. 1989). BMSM represented Barber-Coleman Co. in this products liability suit. In the case, certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that punitive damages were not recoverable in a cause of action based solely upon the theory of strict liability. Joseph H. McGee, David B. McCormack
Tisdale v. Teleflex, Inc., 612 F.Supp. 30 (D.S.C. 1985). BMSM represented Teleflex in this personal injury action arising from a boating accident. The court held that Teleflex, the manufacturer, was not strictly liable for this accident. Benjamin Allston Moore, Jr.
Smoak v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 315 S.E.2d 116, (S.C. 1984). BMSM represented Liebherr-America in this products liability action against the manufacturer of a logging machine equipped with an optional fire suppression system. The Fourth Circuit held that (1) plaintiff's expert witness had, through education and experience, acquired sufficient knowledge to testify as an expert; (2) there was ample evidence of negligence to support the jury's verdict. Benjamin Allston Moore, Jr.
Schall v. Sturm, Ruger Co., Inc., 300 S.E. 2d 735 (S.C. 1983). BMSM represented Sturm in this products liability action. The South Carolina Supreme Court, on certified question, held that a cause of action could not rest upon S.C. Code Ann. 15-73-10 (imposing strict products liability) where the item entered the stream of commerce before the effective date of the statute but the injury occurred after the effective date of the statute. Joseph H. McGee
McCain Mfg. Corp. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 695 F.2d 803 (4th Cir. (S.C. 1982). BMSM appealed for McCain Manufacturing, which had sold a paper cutting machine repaired by Rockwell. The Fourth Circuit found that McCain had a viable cause of action for indemnity against Rockwell even though McCain had been sued for negligence by the injured third party. Susan M. Smythe
Young v. Tide Craft, Inc., 242 S.E.2d 671 (S.C. 1978). BMSM represented Tide Craft in this personal injury action based upon a boating accident. The court found that Tide Craft was not strictly liable. Benjamin Allston Moore, Jr.
Mixson v. Agricultural Helicopters, Inc., 197 S.E.2d 663 (S.C. 1973). BMSM represented Agricultural Helicopters. The South Carolina Supreme Court decided in Agricultural Helicopters' favor and reversed the trial judge's decision to change the venue to another county. Benjamin Allston Moore, Jr.
Amaaker v. Otis Elevator, Co., 848 F.2d 184 (Table) (4th Cir. 1988) (Unpublished disposition, full text available 1988 WL 53226). BMSM represented Otis Elevator in this personal injury action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. C. Allen Gibson, Jr., Joseph H. McGee
|
|
