tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69578186533488398942024-03-12T18:04:38.130-04:00South Carolina Products Liability Law BlogA blog for individuals and product manufacturers who are interested in South Carolina products liability law. My goal is to provide current information on trends in products liability law in the Palmetto State.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-36160276941393147302018-06-20T16:33:00.000-04:002018-06-20T16:41:37.563-04:00Case Brief: Riley v. Ford Motor Co.<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> <span style="color: red;"></span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW8BwGUWQEVL_jwC3UK7MLXiDjGazwFcxHk9R8dauZ1HM3XCLn1WCZUxgkVuQRRphoKz7mcxlQVTWpxJT_O_r2KyR_gCZA_9i1rrHd0HjAibcJNAoMNUPHMKZPtdwQSR2QPSzS0WokA10/s1600/f1502.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW8BwGUWQEVL_jwC3UK7MLXiDjGazwFcxHk9R8dauZ1HM3XCLn1WCZUxgkVuQRRphoKz7mcxlQVTWpxJT_O_r2KyR_gCZA_9i1rrHd0HjAibcJNAoMNUPHMKZPtdwQSR2QPSzS0WokA10/s400/f1502.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<strong><em>
</em></strong><span style="color: black;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> am trying to get back into blogging and catching up on
some cases that have been decided in South Carolina over the last few
years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today’s case is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Riley v. Ford Motor Co.</i>, 414 S.C 185,
777 S.E.2d 824 (2015).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a defective
door latch case where the decedent was thrown from a Ford F-150.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The substance of the case relates to (i) whether
the trial judge should have granted a $600,000 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">additur</i> to the verdict, and (ii) how to apply South Carolina’s
setoff law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no real analysis of
products issues <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">per se</i>, but it is
worth a read from a procedural standpoint.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>FACTUAL
BACKGROUND:</u></b> Benjamin Riley was involved in an automobile accident in a
Ford F-150 when another driver pulled out in front of him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He swerved, collided anyway, and the impact
caused the driver’s door of Riley’s pick-up to open.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Riley was ejected and died from his
injuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>414 S.C. at 189, 777 S.E.2d at
826.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>PROCEDURE:</u></b>
Riley’s widow, as his Personal Representative (“Plaintiff’), filed survival and
wrongful death claims against the opposing driver and Ford.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>414 S.C. at 189, 777 S.E.2d at 827.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The case against Ford alleged a negligently
designed door latch system that resulted in Riley’s ejection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Plaintiff settled with the opposing driver
for $25,000 and allocated $20,000 to the survival claim and $5,000 to the
wrongful death claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The trial judge
approved the settlement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At trial, Plaintiff only submitted the wrongful death
claim against Ford to the jury, and it returned a verdict for $300,000 in
actual damages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The jury found evidence
of conduct to support punitive damages but declined to award them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Plaintiff sought a new trial <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nisi additur </i>(to add damages), which the trial court granted in the
amount of $600,000.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This brought the
total recovery to $900,000.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Ford filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
and to offset the opposing driver’s settlement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The trial judge denied these motions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>. at 190, 777 S.E.2d at 827.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Ford appealed and the South Carolina Court of Appeals
reversed in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Riley v. Ford Motor Co</i>.,
408 S.C. 1, 757 S.E.2d 422 (Ct. App. 2014).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It held the trial court erred in denying Ford’s motion for setoff and in
granting Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nisi
additur</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It reinstated the jury’s
$300,000 verdict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also held Ford was
entitled to offset $20,000 against the jury’s verdict in the wrongful death
action, as opposed to the $5,000 that the settling defendant agreed to allocate
to that claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>. at 190-91, 777 S.E.2d at 828.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Plaintiff appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court on
both issues.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>ISSUES</u>:</b>
(1) Did the court of appeals err in reversing the trial court’s order granting
a new trial <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nisi additur</i>, i.e.,
because the trial court’s decision was an appropriate exercise of discretion
and was supported? (2) Did the court of appeals err in reallocation of the
underlying settlement and setoff of settlement proceeds?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>414 S.C. at 192, 777 S.E.2d at 827-28.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>DISPOSITION</u>:</b>
Reversed on both issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>414 S.C. at
192, 777 S.E.2d at 827-28.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>RULES AND
OPINION</u>:</b> The Court first addressed a motion by a party for a new trial
based on a challenge that the verdict is either excessive or inadequate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rule with regard to this issue is that “’the
trial judge must distinguish between awards that are merely unduly liberal or
conservative and awards that are actuated by passion, caprice, or
prejudice.’”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>414 S.C. at 192, 777 S.E.2d
at 828 (quoting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Allstate Ins. Co. v.
Durham</i>, 314 S.C. 529, 530-31, 431 S.E.2d 557, 558 (1993)).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it is the former, then the trial judge alone
has the power to alter the verdict by granting of a new trial <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nisi</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If it is the latter, it is the duty of the trial court and the appellate
court to set aside the verdict absolutely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the trial judge has discretion,
“compelling reasons” must be given to justify the trial court invading the
jury’s province in this manner. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.
at 193, 777 S.E.2d at 829 (citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bailey
v. Peacock</i>, 818 S.C. 13, 14, 455 S.E.2d 690, 691 (1995)).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At trial, Plaintiff presented expert testimony to support
economic damages of more than $228,000.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
were also so many witnesses to testify about non-economic damages that the
trial judge ruled it became cumulative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In short, substantial evidence supported the decedent was a wonderful
human being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court held the court
of appeals ignored the abuse-of-discretion standard of review and focused on a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de novo</i> evaluation of whether there was
sufficient justification for “invading the jury’s province.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.
at 194, 777 S.E.2d at 829.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court
held this was error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The trial court did
not abuse its discretion in granting an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">additur</i>
of $600,000 based on the trial judge’s thorough recitation of the basis for his
actions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court also clarified
that just because the jury awarded some amount of non-economic damages (over
and above the $228,000 in actual damages) did not mean that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nisi additur</i> was not available.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“While the presence of some amount of
noneconomic damages may be a factor mitigating against the granting of a new
trial <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nisi additur</i>, there is no
categorical rule prohibiting a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nisi
additur</i> where a jury verdict includes some measure of noneconomic damages.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.
at 194, 777 S.E.2d at 830.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On the issue of setoff, “’[a] non-settling defendant is
entitled to credit for the amount paid by another defendant who settles for the
same cause of action.’”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>. (quoting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rutland v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp</i>., 400 S.C. 209, 216, 734 S.E.2d
142, 145 (2012)).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Allowing setoff
prevents a double recovery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court
recounted the principle of setoff was codified as part of the South Carolina
Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act at section 15-38-50(1).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, “any ‘reduction in the judgment must
be from a settlement for the same cause of action.’”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.
at 196, 777 S.E.2d at 830 (quoting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hawkins
v. Pathology Assocs. Of Greenville, P.A.</i>, 330 S.C. 92, 113, 498 S.E.2d 395,
407 (Ct. App. 1998)).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is more
than one claim, this affects how much a non-settling defendant may be allowed
to offset.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The issue was whether the court of appeals erred in
reapportioning the $25,000 settlement between the survival and wrongful death
claims so as to increase the amount Ford could offset against the wrongful
death verdict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court found the court
of appeals erred in reapportioning the settlement proceeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.
at 196-97, 777 S.E.2d at 831.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It agreed
with the approach of the Illinois Court of Appeals, which stated as follows:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A plaintiff who enters into a
settlement with a defendant gains a position of control and acquires leverage
in relation to a non-settling defendant. This posture is reflected in the
plaintiff's ability to apportion the settlement proceeds in the manner most advantageous
to it. Settlements are not designed to benefit non-settling third parties. They
are instead created by the settling parties in the interests of these parties.
If the position of a non-settling defendant is worsened by the terms of a
settlement, this is the consequence of a refusal to settle. A defendant who
fails to bargain is not rewarded with the privilege of fashioning and
ultimately extracting a benefit from the decisions of those who do.</span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #222222;">Id</span></i><span style="color: #222222;">. at 197, 777
S.E.2d at 831 (quoting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lard v. AMI FM
Ohio, Inc.</i>, 327 Ill. Dec. 273, 901 NE.2d at 1019 (2009).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"></span></span></span></span></span></span> </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;">The Court held the trial
court-approved allocation was reasonable and should not have been
disturbed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, Ford was entitled
to set off only the $5,000 the settlement agreement apportioned to the wrongful
death claim, and not the $20,000 reapportioned by the court of appeals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.
at 198, 777 S.E.2d at 831.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
<span style="color: red;"><strong><em><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This post is subject to the </span><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> of this website. </span></em></strong></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-3568876674044473172018-05-15T14:38:00.001-04:002018-05-15T14:38:46.710-04:00Certified as SC Civil Court Mediator<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6_6LrwARoZuzDpJGQdT1Dcro9K25_V0EXYyYUlsymOMZv_DfjmnI3ias6rMw__YcVj5jINUtO-qTkr6Pejvh-NdrR0la8jXhTOmggUIL44LoZwvYavt2zBSauUnFwgyszjEpt5CYh3bg/s1600/Certificate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="579" data-original-width="435" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6_6LrwARoZuzDpJGQdT1Dcro9K25_V0EXYyYUlsymOMZv_DfjmnI3ias6rMw__YcVj5jINUtO-qTkr6Pejvh-NdrR0la8jXhTOmggUIL44LoZwvYavt2zBSauUnFwgyszjEpt5CYh3bg/s320/Certificate.jpg" width="240" /></a>A few weeks back, I took the Civil Court Mediation Training course offered by the South Carolina Bar. I have known about this course for some time, and I have been trying to take it for many years. However, something always seemed to come up. As context, this is a 40 hour course that basically runs from a Thursday morning to the following Monday, from about 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. each day. So, it is tough to coordinate it sometimes with (a) a week where you have other things going on at work, and (b) a weekend where your family may have things going on. However, the stars finally aligned this year, and I was able to complete the course.<br />
<br />
It was extremely worthwhile and not what I expected. I knew that -- because of the duration -- it was going to be a "deep dive" into conflict resolution and negotiation theory/practice. I figured there would be some human behavior and psychology sprinkled in. However, let's be honest: if this was 40 hours of lecture on those topics, it would cease being interesting at some point and become a "snoozer." <br />
<br />
Instead, the course did a great job of mixing theory, practice, and a lot of role play in the mediation process. Each participant had an opportunity to play the role of a mediator in various scenarios, and it was a great opportunity to apply what was learned during the discussion portions of the training.<br />
<br />
I also learned that participating in a ton of mediations as counsel for a party does not automatically equate to being a good mediator. The training really illustrated the differences in being an advocate versus being a neutral, which is the role of a mediator. The training will obviously affect how I serve as a mediator in cases (once I get an opportunity to mediate some cases), but I think it will also impact how I represent clients at mediation. I think having insight into the role and tactics of a mediator will be valuable when I am wearing my "advocate" hat because I have a better idea of how the mediator is approaching the case to try and foster a resolution.<br />
<br />
After completing the training, I submitted my application to be a certified as a Civil Court Mediator, and I received my certificate today! I look forward to developing mediation as an area of practice in the future. I also intend to check out any articles that may be out there that deal with any specific issues/nuances for mediating the products liability case.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><strong><em>This post is subject to the <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE</span></a> of this website.
</em></strong></span><br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-10223919527222473352018-05-04T09:50:00.000-04:002018-05-04T11:35:18.928-04:00Case Brief: Holland ex rel. Knox v. Morbark, Inc.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDB7-IS4oOXXepo8MhmTJVGLsaHFP86ewDIjLTpIT3Ptl1QoqRc7LTS0qtWvo55Rk-061DVou2RgdDevF8d6PJF7DYoEyOW-4jId61YuGdUbIbmOUXaDRS_gjyBnOtK_k_KtQ4Ibz4DIc/s1600/wood+chipper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="612" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDB7-IS4oOXXepo8MhmTJVGLsaHFP86ewDIjLTpIT3Ptl1QoqRc7LTS0qtWvo55Rk-061DVou2RgdDevF8d6PJF7DYoEyOW-4jId61YuGdUbIbmOUXaDRS_gjyBnOtK_k_KtQ4Ibz4DIc/s400/wood+chipper.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<em></em> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<em>Holland ex rel. Knox v. Morbark, Inc.</em>, 407 S.C. 227, 754 S.E.2d 714 (Ct. App. 2014), involves a wood chipper. Anytime I hear the words "wood chipper" I think of Marge Gunderson in the movie, Fargo: "And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper . . . ." (Yes, that is a sock-covered foot under that piece of wood).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I guess you could say I have a dark sense of humor, and the truth is, I love that movie. I have never looked at wood chippers the same since seeing it. Anyway, read on...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>FACTUAL BACKGROUND:</strong> Plaintiff's job was to clean and change the cutting knives inside a wood chipper. 407 S.C. at 230, 754 S.E.2d at 716. When he attempted to raise the hood on the machine, the interior fan blades were still rotating and came in contact with the hood. The contact caused the hood to kick back and strike Plaintiff in the head, injuring him. <em>Id.</em> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>PROCEDURE:</strong> Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the wood chipper manufacturer ("Manufacturer"), his employer, a prior owner of the wood chipper (before sale to his employer), and the installer of the wood chipper. 407 S.C. at 231, 754 S.E.2d at 717. Plaintiff moved to amend his Complaint to dismiss all defendants except Manufacturer and withdraw his negligence claim. He maintained his actions against Manufacturer for strict liability and breach of warranty. Manufacturer consented to Plaintiff's first amendment. Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend his Complaint. Manufacturer opposed the second motion and filed a motion for summary judgment. <em>Id</em>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint because it believed allowing the amendment would prejudice Manufacturer. <em>Id</em>. at 232, 754 S.E.2d at 717. The circuit court granted Manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on grounds that (1) the wood chipper was not in the same condition at the time of the accident as when it left Manufacturer's hands; (2) Manufacturer's failure to incorporate additional safety features did not render the machine unreasonably dangerous when no other industry manufacturer had incorporated the optional safety device advanced by Plaintiff's expert; and (3) Plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable alternative design as required under South Carolina law. <em>Id</em>. at 232-33, 754 S.E.2d at 717-18. The circuit court also dismissed Plaintiff's failure to warn claim. <em>Id</em>. at 233, 754 S.E.2d at 718. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. After his motion was denied, he appealed. <em>Id</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>ISSUES: </strong>(1) Did the circuit court err in denying Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint; and (2) Did the circuit court err in granting Manufacturer's motion for summary judgment? 407 S.C. at 233, 753 S.E.2d at 718.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>DISPOSITION: </strong>Affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>RULES AND OPINION: </strong>First, the Court addressed Plaintiff's arguments concerning amendment of his Complaint. 407 S.C. at 233-37, 754 S.E.2d at 718-20. He argued the circuit court denied his second amendment based on an erroneous conclusion that it had already granted his first motion to amend. <em>Id</em>. at 233-34, 754 S.E.2d at 718. In short, Plaintiff argued the court failed to grant his first motion to amend. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Although the circuit court issued no separate written order granting the amendment and dismissal of the other defendants, the evidence in the record established the circuit court permitted -- and the parties' consented to -- Plaintiff's amendment. Indeed, Plaintiff relied on his first amended Complaint in opposing Manufacturer's motion for summary judgment. His own behavior illustrated his belief that his first amended Complaint was properly before the circuit court. <em>Id</em>. at 234, 754 S.E.2d at 718.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Court then turned to Plaintiff's second motion to amend his Complaint. <em>Id</em>. at 235, 754 S.E.2d at 718-19. It reviewed the standard set forth in Rule 15 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules that (a) a motion to amend is addressed to the circuit court's discretion, and (b) the party opposing the motion has the burden of establishing prejudice. <em>Id</em>. at 235, 753 S.E.2d at 719. "Prejudice occurs when the amendment states a new claim or defense that would require the opposing party to introduce additional or different evidence to prevail in the amended action." <em>Id</em>. (citing <em>Ball v. Canadian Am. Exp. Co., Inc.</em>, 314 S.C. 272, 275, 442 S.E.2d 620, 622 (Ct. App. 1994)). The Court affirmed denial of the second motion to amend because it found Plaintiff was in possession of the additional information about a defect theory after his experts were deposed, but he did not expound on the theory until much later at the motions hearing. <em>Id</em>. Although Plaintiff was not seeking to add a new claim, the addition of his defect theory -- raised after extensive discovery -- would have required additional depositions, hiring of rebuttal experts, and delay on the eve of trial. <em>Id</em>. at 236, 754 S.E.2d at 719. Furthermore, the second amendment would not occur until over two years after Plaintiff filed his first Complaint. Therefore, the Court agreement Manufacturer would have been prejudiced by the granting of the second motion to amend. <em>Id</em>. The Court also pointed out in dicta that the alleged defect theory was based on an OSHA violation, and OSHA only regulates employers, not manufacturers. <em>Id</em>. at 236-37, 754 S.E.2d at 719-20. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Court then turned to the circuit court's grant of summary judgment. <em>Id</em>. at 237, 754 S.E.2d at 720. Plaintiff claimed the circuit court erred in relying on <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html" target="_blank"><em>Branham v. Ford Motor Co.</em>, 390 S.C. 203, 701 S.E.2d 5 (2010)</a>, and its requirement of proving a reasonable alternative design in design defect cases. The Court disagreed and said that to prove a reasonable alternative design, Plaintiff was had to set forth some evidence of an alternative design, which included "consideration of costs, safety, and functionality associated with the alternative design." <em>Id</em>. at 237-38, 754 S.E.2d at 720. Plaintiff's expert admitted he was unaware of anyone in the industry that had performed a feasibility analysis for an alternative design. <em>Id</em>. at 238, 754 S.E.2d at 720. He also admitted he had not prepared an actual design for an interlock system concerning opening the hood and operating blades, only a concept. "Because a conceptual design is insufficient to establish a reasonable alternative design, we find [Plaintiff's] claim for design defect fails as a matter of law." <em>Id</em>. (citing <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/05/case-brief-holst-v-kci-konecranes-intl.html" target="_blank"><em>Holst v. KCI Konecranes Int'l Corp.</em>, 390 S.C. 29, 37, 699 S.E.2d 715, 719-20 (Ct. App. 2010)</a>). The Court further stated that because proof of reasonable alternative design is necessary in a design defect case, it would not address Plaintiff's remaining claims of error pertaining to his design defect cause of action. <em>Id</em>. at 238, 754 S.E.2d at 720-721 (citing <em>Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.</em>, 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 598, 598 (1999) for the principle that an appellate court may not review remaining issues when determination of a prior issue is dispositive). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Court then turned to Plaintiff's argument that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on his failure to warn claim. <em>Id</em>. at 239, 754 S.E.2d at 721. First, because products liability claims share common elements, Plaintiff's failure to establish a reasonable alternative design in his design defect claim prevented him from succeeding on his failure to warn claim as a matter of law. <em>Id</em>. (citing to <em>Branham</em>, 390 S.C. at 210, 701 S.E.2d at 8 for principle that failure to establish any one of the three elements in a companion products liability claim is fatal to all related products liability claims). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Notwithstanding this issue, the Court held the circuit court properly granted summary judgment. The Court recounted the law that "'[a] product bearing a warning that the product is safe for use if the user follows the warning is neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous; therefore, the seller is not liable for any injuries caused by the use of the product if the user ignores the warning.'" <em>Id</em>. (quoting <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/06/case-brief-anderson-v-green-bull-inc.html" target="_blank"><em>Anderson v. Green Bull, Inc.</em>, 322 S.C. 268, 270, 471 S.E.2d 708, 710 (Ct. App. 1996)</a>). A seller is also not required to warn of dangers that are generally known and recognized, and therefore a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous if the danger associated with the product is one the product's users generally recognize. <em>Id</em>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With this context, the Court discussed how the wood chipper had decals, warnings, and an owner's manual when it left the hands of Manufacturer in 1996. <em>Id</em>. at 239-40, 754 S.E.2d at 721. These warnings were not present when Plaintiff was injured. However, the owner prior to Plaintiff's employer had affixed warnings on the machine that warned of the potential dangers at issue in the case. The Court found these warnings were sufficient to render the machine safe for use if the user followed the warnings. <em>Id</em>. at 240, 754 S.E.2d at 721. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regardless, the Court believed it would be improper to hold Manufacturer liable for failure to warn since (a) Manufacturer affixed warnings at the time of manufacture, (b) the warnings at issue were affixed by a prior owner of the machine (not Manufacturer), (c) Manufacturer sold the machine ten years prior to the accident, and (d) three intervening owners used the machine before Plaintiff's injury. <em>Id</em>. Plaintiff also indicated in his testimony that he appreciated the danger being hit in the head by the hood if he opened it prematurely. Manufacturer had no duty to warn Plaintiff of a danger he already recognized. <em>Id</em>. at 240, 754 S.E.2d at 721-22. <br />
<br />
This is an interesting case that mixes in a little of everything. There is heavy reliance on <em>Branham</em> and <em>Anderson</em>, which I consider to be two of the most important, "meaty" cases in South Carolina products liability law. In addition, even though the Court does not quote case law concerning the "<a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Same%20Condition" target="_blank">essentially same condition</a>" element of a products liability action, it is clear there is some reliance on this law in affirming summary judgment.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><strong><em>This post is subject to the <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE</span></a> of this website.
</em></strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-90758011847012382132014-02-24T16:33:00.000-05:002014-02-24T16:33:20.052-05:002014 DRI Products Liability Conference<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-qxsH6tDKuXSOv6CQGBn1QDYJh5lV6SQIwhc22eiSjGz1CQ8yJ2_uGO4Rm1fDoFTnYZVDBo__cRLecBqP6dkG3pUah2Pz-Zrj38Zg-HGarMwJ8ByrN7DCRKTi0gxkXlXLl4FvOUUG8PQ/s1600/dri-logo-new.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-qxsH6tDKuXSOv6CQGBn1QDYJh5lV6SQIwhc22eiSjGz1CQ8yJ2_uGO4Rm1fDoFTnYZVDBo__cRLecBqP6dkG3pUah2Pz-Zrj38Zg-HGarMwJ8ByrN7DCRKTi0gxkXlXLl4FvOUUG8PQ/s1600/dri-logo-new.png" height="160" width="400" /></a></div>
<span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><br />
<span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><br />
<span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Since 2010, I
have made it a priority to attend the <a href="http://dri.org/"><span style="color: #bb5532;">Defense Research
Institute's</span></a> <a href="http://dri.org/Event/20140200"><span style="color: #bb5532;">Products Liability Conference</span></a>. This year's conference is </span></span><span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;">being held April
9-11, 2013, in Phoenix, Arizona at the <a href="http://www.arizonabiltmore.com/">Arizona Biltmore</a>. The theme of this year's conference is "Plan and Prepare."</span></span><br /><br /><span class="640530923-28012013">This conference is always
outstanding. I try to attend it each year because (1) the programming keeps me
updated from a practice standpoint, and (2) now that I have attended for a few
years, there are more and more "familiar faces" for networking purposes. I have made some great friends, and I have also gotten referrals from contacts made at the conference. In my opinion, it is a "must attend" if you defend products liability cases.</span><br /><br /><span class="640530923-28012013">In addition, I am in my first
year serving as Chair of the Agricultural, Construction, Mining and Industrial Equipment
("ACMIE") Specialized Litigation Group ("SLG"). As you know from posts about prior conferences, ACMIE always has a breakout session, but things are a little different this year. ACMIE actually has a "main stage" presentation in front of all conference attendees. Our main stage presentation is entitled "Warn, Retrofit, or Recall: Risk Management Considerations for Legacy Equipment." This presentation will focus on products liability claims involving older equipment. (I had a legacy equipment case years ago involving an extremely old corn picker, and I can vouch for the fact that there are some challenges and nuances when dealing with these types of cases). Kevin G. Owens (Johnson and Bell Ltd.), Jaime L. Myers (Caterpillar Inc.) and Daniel A. DuPre (Federal Signal Corporation) will present on this topic. at 2 p.m. on April 9, 2014 during the afternoon main stage portion.</span><br />
<span class="640530923-28012013"></span><br />
<span class="640530923-28012013">On April 10, 2104, we will also have an abbreviated breakout session (due to the fact that we are doing a main stage presentation). Our breakout session will be from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and we will have two presentations. First, Mark E. Gebauer (Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC), Kristin K. Esche (Deere & Company) and David M. Nicholas (Volvo Construction Equipment North America LLC) will present on "Expert Witnesses: Inside or Outside? The Pros and Cons." Then, Matt Hundley (Moran Reeves & Conn PC Law Firm) will present our annual "ACMIE Top Ten for 2013."</span><br />
<span class="640530923-28012013"></span><br />
<span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If you have not already registered, I would urge
you to plan to attend this conference and participate in our SLG meeting. All
of the information about the conference and registration can be found at <a href="http://dri.org/Event/20140200"><span style="color: #bb5532;">this link</span></a>,</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> and I hope you will make plans to
attend. </span></span> You can also download the event brochure by clicking <a href="http://dri.org/event_brochures/20140200.pdf">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-69932968081522164272014-02-13T18:57:00.000-05:002014-02-14T07:20:43.214-05:00"The report of my death was an exaggeration . . . . . ." Mark Twain, May 31, 1897<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQtVQVbGNrtwtK4Nob0gltvwlYN35UH49GXr2l-EogbbCbQctozaPV2BfJrhTq8-VSqXyXZtnpFQzd8zjU6_QvoVpCJMkmOAV0rbpa2mBdF48tHfwhj9NXPUAJlXl-qPOezlBEadkhBQU/s1600/mark+twain.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQtVQVbGNrtwtK4Nob0gltvwlYN35UH49GXr2l-EogbbCbQctozaPV2BfJrhTq8-VSqXyXZtnpFQzd8zjU6_QvoVpCJMkmOAV0rbpa2mBdF48tHfwhj9NXPUAJlXl-qPOezlBEadkhBQU/s1600/mark+twain.png" height="320" width="221" /></a>From some quick online research, I believe <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain">Mark Twain</a> is credited with the above quote, and it is frequently misquoted as "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Although "death," is certainly an exaggeration in my case, you have probably been wondering where I have been these last few months. It has been <u>way</u> too long since my last post, so some explanation is in order. It also provides me with a good opportunity to provide some retrospective commentary on this blog, which turns "5" in May of the year. So . . . bear with me while I provide some context for "where I've been."<br />
<br />
In the spring of 2009, I knew I would likely be transitioning to a different law firm -- or opening my own -- in the near future. Around that time, I had a robust practice that had kept me busy. However, the vast majority of my work was in a support role. Truthfully, I had been practicing for ten years, but I had no real clients I could call my own. Make no mistake, I worked very hard for the clients I serviced, but I was not "their lawyer" on speed dial. If you were counting billable hours, I worked very hard. However, I did not publish, speak, or really do any client development of my own. I was a service lawyer (and I like to think I was a pretty good one).<br />
<br />
This blog was my first real attempt to try and change things. I wanted to develop my own practice, and I had a desire to "get my name out there." By using blogger.com, the site was free. Therefore, my small marketing budget was a non-factor. The blog also had the potential to reach as far as Google's search optimization "spiders" would allow, so there was good potential for exposure. The only real "cost" was my time. Now . . . I am not sure how much you remember about 2009, but the legal industry took a real downturn; one thing I had was "time." I began to pour some of my efforts into carving out my place on the internet and establishing myself as someone with knowledge of South Carolina products liability law. <br />
<br />
There were some immediate benefits to this blog. By posting substantive content, I learned more and more about South Carolina products liability law (as opposed to pieces of products liability law around the county in the national practice I supported at the time). People began to call me and ask questions about what I thought about some new products case, or tort reform. It was also pretty gratifying to go on the site every day and see how many people visited, or the key words that brought them to the site. Although a little disconcerting, I began to see key words like "Brian Comer South Carolina products liability law" that someone used to get to the site. I thought, "Awesome! . . . It is only a matter of time before potential clients start calling!"<br />
<br />
Well . . . yes and no. I changed firms in the summer of 2009 and came to <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/">Collins & Lacy</a>. I remained very focused on building a practice. I blogged frequently, and I published and spoke almost as frequently. With a greater marketing budget, I became heavily involved in the <a href="http://dri.org/">Defense Research Institute</a>, the<a href="http://scdtaa.com/"> South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association</a>, and <a href="http://www.primerus.com/">Primerus</a>. I blogged. I spoke. I published. (Did I say I blogged?).<br />
<br />
It took awhile. I had a nice long list of publications and presentations, but it did not immediately yield fruit in terms of client development. What it <u>did</u> do, however, was show that I had put some serious time into knowing and following this particular area of practice in South Carolina. I continued to assist colleagues at my new firm with their work, and I remained focused on developing my own practice.<br />
<br />
I seriously underestimated how long it would take. However, about a year ago, I began to see my efforts at developing a practice "pop." Here is the irony though: it did not start with products liability. I also devote a fair amount of my practice to FINRA arbitration, which involves defending financial advisors and broker-dealers from claims by investors. I really enjoy it. I began to get calls about these types of claims, and I began to have some clients that called me to defend them. I began to get much busier, which is evidenced by my decrease in blogging in 2013. As 2013 ended and 2014 began, things "popped" again. This time it was in products liability, FINRA arbitration, and general professional liability litigation. Great clients (and I am grateful for every one of them), and great cases. <br />
<br />
All of the above is a long-winded way of saying . . . I have gotten very busy. And, that is a very <u>good</u> thing. It is the culmination of what started this blog to begin with: trying to develop my own practice, instead of serving in a support role. <br />
<br />
I recall that early in my legal career, a very well-known attorney told me that the key to building my own practice was to "write something, and then people will call you about it." I do not completely agree with that statement. Although there may be a science to practice development and legal marketing, I cannot say I have figured it out. All I know is that I wrote and presented quite a bit (not just "something"), and I focused on doing good work for the clients I serviced and who called me. It paid off. It just took longer than I realized when I set out to do it.<br />
<br />
For anyone at any stage of their legal career who may be reading this and who may be trying to figure out how to develop their practice, I encourage you to keep at it! I am not sure there is any set formula. The above is what (eventually) worked for me, but I am sure there are alternate routes. I think any route likely involves some measure of publishing, presenting, and becoming involved in organizations . . . all in an effort to "get your name out there." <br />
<br />
So . . . where to go from here? More of the same, I hope. I genuinely enjoy blogging, and my apologies that this site has not been as active as it was prior to 2013. However, even though I really enjoy blogging, the blog was never an "end" in and of itself. It was a means to trying to develop a practice, and it has served that end. I hope to continue to update it as my time allows, and I now need to assess how to make time to do that. I will continue to try and update it as often as I can, and I greatly appreciate all the visitors who drop by. I have had some nice people tell me that it has provided a great resource for them, and I greatly appreciate those compliments. <br />
<br />
Stay tuned! I hope to continue to bring you thoughtful commentary on South Carolina products liability law, and I will make every effort to do it with as much consistency as I can.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-83864187699882290742013-09-13T10:09:00.000-04:002013-09-13T10:31:16.659-04:00Verdict Survey: $38 Million Asbestos Verdict in Richland County<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoRq-A1x9SA0JlgX7ra7BMA_0FMY-FB9t5MIP6hT9Wheik3pB1POEbZOgmHAp9ftuYGEkZmo4khNWI-Zv4uLxhSQeGcAA1GGh2xvHNyfjAAUeUI5PJmm28AbgMsIWtOg2lpb0N1Ww5_uU/s1600/3385452351_a5a3e92c1d.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoRq-A1x9SA0JlgX7ra7BMA_0FMY-FB9t5MIP6hT9Wheik3pB1POEbZOgmHAp9ftuYGEkZmo4khNWI-Zv4uLxhSQeGcAA1GGh2xvHNyfjAAUeUI5PJmm28AbgMsIWtOg2lpb0N1Ww5_uU/s200/3385452351_a5a3e92c1d.jpg" width="200" /></a>About two weeks ago, I saw my friend Theile McVey at Starbucks. She mentioned in our general chit-chat that she was in trial. As shop talk usually goes, I asked her what kind of case it was, and she said it was an asbestos case. Apparently, it went pretty well. I don't have much in terms of details and will try to update this post if/when I get more information, but for now, John Monk at <a href="http://www.thestate.com/">The State Newspaper</a> did a nice article today, which can be found <a href="http://www.thestate.com/2013/09/12/2976729/richland-county-jury-awards-38.html#">here</a> and is cut and pasted below. (I added in a few hyperlinks for additional information).</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Richland County jury awards $38 million in asbestos
case</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Published: September 12, 2013 Updated 12 hours ago</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">By JOHN MONK — <a href="mailto:jmonk@thestate.com">jmonk@thestate.com</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">A Richland County jury
has awarded a Wagener equipment worker and his wife $38 million in damages for
health problems linked to exposure to asbestos.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Following a 21/2-week
trial, the jury awarded plaintiff Lloyd Strom Garvin, 74, $10 million in actual
damages and another $1 million in actual damages to his wife of 50-plus years,
Velda Garvin, for loss of consortium.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The jury also ordered
defendants Durco and Crane Co. to pay $11 million each in punitive damages to
Lloyd Garvin. It ordered a third defendant, Byron Jackson, to pay $5 million in
punitive damages. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">A spokesman for Crane
said Thursday the company will appeal. Among possible grounds for appeal are
“no credible evidence” and excessive and unwarranted jury awards, said <a href="http://www.klgates.com/terry-budd/">TerryBudd</a>, a Pittsburgh lawyer who represents Crane.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">“The verdict is
flawed,” Budd said. “We’re definitely appealing.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Efforts to reach
Charleston attorney <a href="http://www.leathbouchlaw.com/tim.html">Tim Bouch</a>, who represented Durco and Byron Jackson during
the trial, were unsuccessful Thursday.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Durco, Byron Jackson
and Crane are major companies that manufacture pumps and valves. Garvin
contended his years of exposure to their asbestos-containing gaskets and
packing in valves and pumps that he used in factory and farm work caused him to
develop mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that plaintiffs said was nearly
always caused by asbestos exposure.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The jury was out some
four hours and returned a final verdict around 9 p.m. Wednesday night. <a href="http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/circuitCourt/displaycirjudge.cfm?judgeid=2138">Circuit Judge Garrison Hill</a> of Greenville presided.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Originally, Garvin’s
lawsuit named 13 defendants, but most had been dropped or settled by the time
the trial began Aug. 26.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Garvin’s lawyers,
<a href="http://www.sgpblaw.com/shareholders/mesothelioma-lawyer-jessica-dean/">Jessica Dean</a> of Dallas and <a href="http://kasselmcvey.com/theile-mcvey/">Theile McVey</a> of the Columbia firm Kassel McVey,
argued at trial that defendants Crane, Durco and Byron Jackson used asbestos in
their products, should have known about its dangers and failed to take action
to warn and protect people like Garvin who work around their products.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Garvin’s testimony and
cross-examination during trial was presented to the jury by a video recording
displayed on a large courtroom screen. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">He is currently
recovering from double pneumonia. His lawyers contended at trial that he has
less than a year to live because of his cancer.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">During closing
arguments, Garvin’s attorney Dean asked the jury to award $1 million in actual
damages for each year of life that Garvin was expected to miss because of his
fatal disease. Garvin’s life expectancy would have been another 10 to 11 years,
she argued.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Attorney <a href="http://www.nelsonmullins.com/attorneys/robert-meriwether">Robert Meriwether</a> of the Columbia firm Nelson Mullins and Bouch were the defendants’
attorneys during trial.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">According to a
complaint in 2012 action, some of Lloyd Garvin’s exposure to
asbestos-containing equipment and products came in Wagener while working on his
family farm, as well as while working as a heavy equipment operator in West
Columbia and Aiken. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The trial took place in
Richland County because the complaint, filed in 2012, alleged some of the
exposure had a Richland County connection. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Reach Monk at (803)
771-8344.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: red;"><em>This post is subject to the <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE</span></a> of this website.
</em></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-71816082837558828212013-08-07T16:41:00.000-04:002013-08-07T16:41:43.055-04:00Motion in Limine Order in Quinton v. Toyota Addresses Crashworthiness in Modern Era<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2013/08/verdict-survey-2009-rollover-of-toyota.html" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1RLDoipIQBxVuQJpT4FWPXJ74NFhlkYBiDQ3OSzFYSOHtZadVT18tQdhNyLaRxyqiE6lgjPSO6bcj_cs7r0Pt9TIO5xhbQslcZsp4cvIzcyystzbf65nvOPbC5PqK1xGU3sC4KV_z8N8/s400/crashworthiness.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Earlier this week, I blogged about a <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2013/08/verdict-survey-2009-rollover-of-toyota.html">recent trial of a Toyota Camry rollover case, which resulted in a defense verdict on June 21, 2013</a>. Prior to the trial, the Court issued a pre-trial Order in response to a motion <em>in limine</em> filed by Plaintiff's counsel. The Order can be found <a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">here</a>, and it is worthy of further commentary because it addresses <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crashworthiness">crashworthiness</a> in South Carolina. It also references recent case law in which our courts have hinted at moving toward the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998). So...let's take a closer look.</div>
<br />
To re-cap, the general facts relating to <em>Quinton v. Toyota Motor Corporation</em> can be found in <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2013/08/verdict-survey-2009-rollover-of-toyota.html">this post</a>. Generally, the case involved a rollover of a 2009 Toyota Camry that resulted in the death of the driver (and sole occupant). As stated in the Order, Plaintiff brought the case under the crashworthiness doctrine because she alleged the air bag failed to deploy properly during the accident. (<a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Order</a> at 2). As a result, she claimed "enhanced injury" when the accident occurred, resulting in the death of the driver. (<em><a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Id</a></em>). Therefore, prior to trial, Plaintiff moved to exclude all evidence related to causation or fault. <br />
<br />
The Court began by summarizing prior South Carolina case authority on the crashworthiness doctrine. Quoting from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18100792789877448130&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><em>Jiminez v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.,</em> 269 F.3d 439, 452 (4th Cir. 2001)</a>, the Court noted that "'liability [in a crashworthiness case] is imposed not for defects that cause collisions but for defects that cause injuries after collisions occur.'" (<a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Order</a> at 2) (quoting <em>id</em>.). In <em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18100792789877448130&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Jiminez</a></em>, the district court excluded evidence of causation in a crashworthiness case. The defendant had argued that because South Carolina adopted comparative negligence, the driver's alleged negligence was relevant to a damages calculation. In concluding that the district court committed no error, the <em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18100792789877448130&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Jiminez</a></em> Court noted that South Carolina had not addressed the issue of whether causation was relevant in a a crashworthiness analysis, and there was a split of authority on the issue. Although the Court was not certain what the rule would be in South Carolina, it could not conclude that the the district court had erred in light of the fact that -- under the crashworthiness doctrine -- the cause of the original accident was not relevant to proving a claim for enhanced injury. (<a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Order</a> at 2-3). <br />
<br />
Since <em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18100792789877448130&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Jiminez</a></em>, the Court recognized that South Carolina courts still have not directly addressed this issue. The Court offered to certify the question to the South Carolina Supreme Court, but the parties declined. Therefore, the Court tried to ascertain how South Carolina courts would rule on it. (<a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Order</a> at 3).<br />
<br />
The Court reviewed that <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html"><em>Branham v. Ford Motor Co.,</em> 390 S.C. 203, 220, 701 S.E.2d 5, 14 (2010)</a> "embraced the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998)." (<a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Order</a> at 3). Noting this trend, the Court cited to the comments in Restatement (Third) section 16 and the notion that a plaintiff's fault in causing an action that causes defect-related increased harm <em>is relevant</em> to apportioning responsibility. (<a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Order</a> at 3-4) (emphasis added). The Court noted that <em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18100792789877448130&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Jiminez</a></em> did <em>not</em> hold that South Carolina would not admit evidence of cause in a crashworthiness analysis. Rather, <em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18100792789877448130&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Jiminez</a></em> only concluded there was no error by the district court under then-existing South Carolina law. (<a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Order</a> at 4).<br />
<br />
Since <em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18100792789877448130&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Jiminez</a></em>, the Court noted that South Carolina has adopted comparative negligence, and its Supreme Court cited Restatement (Third) and its comments with approval in <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham</a></em>. (<a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Order</a> at 5). The Court also noted that a majority of jurisdictions that considered the issue have held that comparative negligence is appropriately considered in a crashworthiness case. Finally, the Court cited to language in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18100792789877448130&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><em>Jiminez's</em> </a>dissent to support that a jury has to assess behavior of both the plaintiff and the defendant in a crashworthiness case to determine causation. The Court also agreed that the evidence was relevant to the analysis and conclusions of the experts accident reconstruction. (<em><a href="http://www.collinslacy.net/marketing/pdf/2013/QuintonVsToyota.pdf">Id</a></em>.). <br />
<br />
The Order continues to show what this blog has maintained in numerous posts: <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html"><em>Branham</em></a> was a "game changer" in South Carolina products liability law. Whether it leads to a definitive adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998) by the Legislature remains to be seen, although <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/06/update-south-carolina-tort-reform.html">our Legislature also made those overtures during the last round of tort reform</a>. We'll see...<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><strong><em>This post is subject to the <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE</span></a> of this website.
</em></strong></span><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-29160870050748506762013-08-05T12:38:00.000-04:002013-08-05T13:09:42.773-04:00Verdict Survey: 2009 Rollover of Toyota Camry in Aiken County<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoBuYCzCQmO4dkqnlBivuLyEX5yV1eWCgYoBM5oQPtP0DBFa_bMusjkZrS0RIhac5VSohtdqFrX7X7WlmAP9seFbvO9jY2mEAoqx6YoTSdpV7eI2E8ehHuB98z1l9O2mSzqrUEUEVwAEE/s1600/Cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoBuYCzCQmO4dkqnlBivuLyEX5yV1eWCgYoBM5oQPtP0DBFa_bMusjkZrS0RIhac5VSohtdqFrX7X7WlmAP9seFbvO9jY2mEAoqx6YoTSdpV7eI2E8ehHuB98z1l9O2mSzqrUEUEVwAEE/s400/Cropped.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
On June 21, 2013, a jury returned a defense verdict in a rollover case tried in <a href="http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/court/Aiken.asp">United States District Court, Aiken Division</a>. The details of the case are set forth below.<br />
<br />
<strong>Capsule Summary:</strong> On June 21, 2013, a jury returned a defense verdict in a case involving a fatal rollover event in a <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=2009+toyota+camry&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.50165853,d.b2I,pv.xjs.s.en_US.seW1cfrvSKg.O&biw=1366&bih=622&wrapid=tlif137571729762710&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=uMf_Ud_DD8mnqQHdtoGACQ">2009 Toyota Camry</a>. The driver's personal representative for the estate brought a wrongful death suit against multiple defendants, alleging claims for strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence.<br />
<br />
<strong>Case Information:</strong> <em>Alacia C. Quinton as PR for the Estate of April Lynn Quinton, Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyoda Gosei North America Corporation, Defendants</em>, C/A No.: 1:10-cv-02187-JMC.<br />
<br />
<strong>Date of Verdict:</strong> June 21, 2013<br />
<br />
<strong>Venue:</strong> <a href="http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/court/Aiken.asp">United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Aiken Division</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Judge:</strong> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michelle_Childs">The Honorable J. Michelle Childs</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Factual Background:</strong> On October 14, 2009, April Lynn Quinton was driving a rented 2009 Toyota Camry in Aiken, South Carolina. She lost control of the vehicle while driving north into a left-hand curve. The car exited the road, struck an embankment, and rolled over several times before coming to rest on its wheels. Ms. Quinton was partially ejected and suffered severed head injuries from which she never recovered. She died on October 23, 2009.<br />
<br />
<strong>Allegations and Procedure:</strong> Plaintiff filed a wrongful death and survival action against Defendants in the Aiken County Court of Common Pleas. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/drilling-down-strict-liability.html">strict products liability</a>, <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/07/basics-breach-of-warranty-overview.html">breach of warranty</a>, and <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/drilling-down-negligence.html">negligence</a>. Plaintiff alleged the vehicle's roof structure and seat belt restraint system were <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2012/07/basics-proving-defective-condition.html">defective</a> generally. Plaintiff also alleged that the supplemental restraint system, which involved certain airbag technology, was defectively designed. More specifically, the 2009 Toyota Camry's supplemental restraint system included a curtain shield airbag ("CSA"). This system deploys above the vehicle's doors to protect a passenger's head from side impacts. Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle lacked a rollover-activated curtain shield airbag ("RCSA"). This system, which was not included in the 2009 vehicle, has a rollover sensor that deploys the curtain shield airbags when it senses the car is rolling over.<br />
<br />
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court of the District of South Carolina, Aiken Division. Defendants answered the Complaint and later filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the motion with regard to Plaintiff's claims relating to a defective roof and defective seat belt restraint system. However, it denied summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim of a defectively designed supplemental restraint system.<br />
<br />
At trial, the primary liability theory remaining and asserted by Plaintiff was the claim that the driver's side airbag failed to fully deploy. Plaintiff alleged this failure was the result of a hole in the airbag during manufacture (i.e., manufacturing defect). Defendants demonstrated that the hole found in the airbag post-accident was created during the severe four-roll rollover event as the bag was constrained and over-pressurized. In addition, the defendants presented evidence of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures followed a the non-party manufacturers. <br />
<br />
<strong>Experts:</strong> Plaintiff presented the following experts: Ron Kirk (accident reconstruction), Robert Bowser (airbag design), Richard Edwards (materials science), and Joe Burton (biomechanics). Defendants presented the following experts: Geoff Germane (accident reconstruction), Bob Gratzinger (roof structure), Mike Klima (airbag design), Karen Balavich (airbag/materials science) and Catherine Corrigan (biomechanics).<br />
<br />
<strong>Alleged Damages:</strong> Plaintiff asked for $5 million.<br />
<br />
<strong>Result:</strong> After four hours of deliberation, the jury returned their verdict in favor of the defendants.<br />
<br />
<strong>Miscellaneous:</strong> This case also involved some pre-trial motions, one of which was a motion <em>in limine</em> by Plaintiff to exclude all evidence related to accident causation or fault. I will try to post the Court's Order on that motion later in the week, as it provides some interesting insight into our state's movement toward Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998) and crashworthiness. Also, special thanks to my friends and former colleagues, <a href="http://www.bowmanandbrooke.com/attorneys/richard-h-willis">Dick Willis</a> and <a href="http://www.bowmanandbrooke.com/attorneys/angela-g-strickland">Angela Strickland</a>, for calling this case to my attention. Dick and Angela were on the defense trial team for this case. They were also kind enough to present the case at our products liability breakout session at the <a href="http://scdtaa.org/">South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association</a> Summer Meeting a couple of weeks ago.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><strong><em>This post is subject to the
</em></strong><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;"><strong><em>DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE
</em></strong></span></a><strong><em>of this website. </em></strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-59262495873384293902013-07-29T12:14:00.000-04:002013-07-29T12:14:51.755-04:00SCDTAA Panel on Expert Retention at Summer Meeting<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm2K4bxaNue-kPjfVOsw7_pDFf9k_8Juplne4O1DIC_KbsHOQAATvh03PdFQ_oBImH17JAO91hqJV3bIQ4XSMiy1RJdZnH5vParlJGiuhkJF1Gv86Iqwt1NAEE2Uz882qIwMDDDniqmMo/s1600/grove_park.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm2K4bxaNue-kPjfVOsw7_pDFf9k_8Juplne4O1DIC_KbsHOQAATvh03PdFQ_oBImH17JAO91hqJV3bIQ4XSMiy1RJdZnH5vParlJGiuhkJF1Gv86Iqwt1NAEE2Uz882qIwMDDDniqmMo/s320/grove_park.jpg" width="265" /></a>Last Friday, I had the opportunity to serve on a panel at the annual summer meeting of the <a href="http://scdtaa.org/">South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association</a> ("SCDTAA"). For the last couple of years, I have served as a Co-Chair of the organization's Products Liability Substantive Law Committee, and this role has afforded me the opportunity to become more involved in SCDTAA. Although I was only able to go up for the day, the meeting occurred from July 25 to July 27, 2013 at the <a href="http://www.groveparkinn.com/">Grove Park Inn</a> in Asheville, North Carolina. (This was my first time going to the Grove Park Inn...I will definitely go back, as it is a beautiful setting).</div>
<br />
I was originally contacted earlier this year about serving on this panel. The idea was to get three or four different lawyers who handle different types of cases, and bring the perspectives of those practice areas to a discussion about best practices when dealing with experts. After some discussion, I was designated to speak on products liability on the panel, <a href="http://www.hoodlaw.com/attorneys/blanton-oneal/">Blanton O'Neal</a> handled the perspective from construction litigation, and <a href="http://www.roecassidy.com/fred-trey-suggs.php">Trey Suggs</a> handled medical malpractice. <a href="http://www.gwblawfirm.com/ronald-k-wray-ii.php">Ron Wray</a> moderated the panel, and our time lot was 11:15 a.m. to noon on Friday.<br />
<br />
It was a nice discussion, and we had a good crowd of probably forty to fifty lawyers in attendance. Generally, we spoke about issues relating to hiring national versus local experts, "professional" experts versus practicing specialists, expert preparation, and a variety of other issues that every practitioner has to address when dealing with experts. From the products liability perspective, I discussed how experts have become more important in this practice area in the last few years in light of <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/case-brief-watson-v-ford-motor-co.html">Watson v. Ford Motor Co</a></em>., <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-brief-graves-v-cas-medical-systems.html"><em>Graves v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc.</em></a>, and our courts' definitive decision to require proof of alternative design in design defect cases (which is -- in my opinion -- difficult to prove without engaging an expert). If you follow this blog, you are familiar with these issues and case law, as I have blogged extensively about them over the last few years.<br />
<br />
I always enjoy speaking, and the SCDTAA is a great organization if you do defense work in South Carolina. If you have any interest in becoming more involved in SCDTAA generally or the Products Liability Substantive Law Committee, I would be happy to discuss the organization with you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-4871267418658954632013-06-27T16:18:00.000-04:002013-06-27T16:18:03.880-04:00Just Returned from the DRI Products Liability Steering Committee Fly-In Meeting<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-nWCOQCt1dpiWW_XHz6KLNjiQ78MDeMW0gTt-MokwgUT080DAYxiSkw_hXC7YIkwvf3iZP_k-PdaEP8UCwVnZ8aUsRDsi1Ix_lwZKTCxQSRkRfw1xrxJkgxloKtz4vKpcBqJbFt7q128/s256/dri-logo-new.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-nWCOQCt1dpiWW_XHz6KLNjiQ78MDeMW0gTt-MokwgUT080DAYxiSkw_hXC7YIkwvf3iZP_k-PdaEP8UCwVnZ8aUsRDsi1Ix_lwZKTCxQSRkRfw1xrxJkgxloKtz4vKpcBqJbFt7q128/s400/dri-logo-new.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I just returned from the yearly "fly-in" meeting of the <a href="http://dri.org/Committee/Leadership?code=0200">DRI Products Liability Steering Committee</a>. This is an annual meeting in June where members of the committee get together to discuss and plan the next year's Products Liability Conference. It is a productive meeting, and it is also a chance to get together with friends on the committee and catch up in between conferences. <br />
<br />
Go ahead and mark your calendar for the 2014 DRI Products Liability Conference, which is scheduled for April 9-11, 2014 at the <a href="http://www.arizonabiltmore.com/">Arizona Biltmore</a> in Phoenix, Arizona. There are going to be a few format changes for the 2014 conference. The most significant change (for me) is that the Specialized Litigation Group ("SLG") that I chair -- Agricultural, Construction, Mining and Industrial Equipment -- is scheduled to do a one-hour "main stage" presentation. In the past, the SLGs have done breakout sessions. This year, certain SLGs are being asked to provide a main stage presentation, and ACMIE is one of them. I need to submit our topic by July 9, so if you have any ideas and care to share them, let me hear from you!<br />
<br />
We also discussed other topics for the conference, general themes, and membership matters. We also had an interesting discussion on future venues and how to respond to participant feedback in terms of programming, the preferred month for the conference (as April seems to run into spring break for many people), venue, etc. It was a productive meeting, and now that I have been involved with this group for four or five years, I have made some good friends and enjoyed the opportunity to catch up with them. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, my travel home was brutal. Storms in Chicago, and a missed connection in Charlotte led to a 1:00 a.m. arrival, as opposed to the planned 9:30 p.m. arrival. But, it is always good to get home.<br />
<br />
If you have any interest in <a href="http://dri.org/">DRI</a>, please let me know, as I would be happy to assist with getting you involved. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-60736070674472242952013-06-18T09:51:00.000-04:002013-06-18T09:57:50.862-04:00Verdict Survey: Tankless Water Heaters in Dorchester County<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ggLywdmWiBwTlsr4MD37enGoRdY_SxGJRX8AvVUgdtB3zkkWGZr5Iq_ixXo6t0bmvhio0ozvnxAlL82pNjHPp8ER2UosEIQ40tOYd1X75X7J9BQC4s5XBWpYUmbae-zS8vEGHMoOOVs/s1600/eccotemp-40-h-2__89396_1316448586_1280_1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ggLywdmWiBwTlsr4MD37enGoRdY_SxGJRX8AvVUgdtB3zkkWGZr5Iq_ixXo6t0bmvhio0ozvnxAlL82pNjHPp8ER2UosEIQ40tOYd1X75X7J9BQC4s5XBWpYUmbae-zS8vEGHMoOOVs/s320/eccotemp-40-h-2__89396_1316448586_1280_1280.jpg" width="248" /></a></div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;">The May 2013 issue of
<em>Verdict Search</em> included a South Carolina products liability case tried in
Dorchester County.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The details of the
case are set forth below.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Capsule Summary:</b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>On March 1, 2013, a Dorchester County jury
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $750,000 in a case involving
tankless water heaters purchased by the plaintiff plumbing company. Plaintiff alleged the tankless water
heaters it purchased failed once temperatures began to drop in the winter,
causing water pipes in the homes in which they were installed to burst.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Case Information: </b><em>Amo,
LLC v. Eccotemp Systems, LLC, Greenwave Hot Water Heaters, LLC/Eccotemp
Systems, LLC v. Hurricane Construction, Inc.,</em> C/A No. 2010-CP-18-01920,
Dorchester County Court of Common Pleas.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Date of
Verdict:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>March 1, 2013</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Venue: </b><a href="http://www.dorchestercounty.net/index.aspx?page=535">Dorchester County Court of Common Pleas</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><strong>Judge:</strong><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> <a href="http://sccourts.org/circuitCourt/displaycirjudge.cfm?judgeid=2140">The Honorable Michael G. Nettles</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<strong>Factual
Background:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;">In 2008, Plaintiff Amo, LLC (“Amo”) (a plumbing
company) purchased 75 tankless water heaters and installed them in various
homes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amo purchased the units from
Eccotemp Systems, LLC (“Eccotemp”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
water heaters were supposed to produce warm water on demand and conserve
energy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were also allegedly 30 to 40 percent
less expensive than the price of competitor products that were similar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amo paid $498 per unit. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;">In the winter of 2008, and as temperatures began to fall, the
units Amo purchased began to fail and caused water pipes in the homes in which
they were installed to burst.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Allegations and
Procedure: </b>Amo sued Eccotemp and claimed Eccotemp manufactured and
sold a defective product.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amo alleged
causes of action for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and violation of the <a href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t39c005.php">South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amo also named the retailer
that sold the water heaters, but the retailer was dismissed later by Plaintiff’s
counsel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eccotemp then impleaded Hurricane Construction, Inc. (the homebuilder) for whom Amo installed the units, but Hurricane was dismissed from
the case prior to trial.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;">At trial, Amo's counsel argued Eccotemp’s
products included broken thermostats, which caused water pipes to freeze.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The thermostats also caused the units to
malfunction and not heat water inside the units if temperatures dropped below
37 degrees fahrenheit. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was
testimony at trial that 70 percent of units sold to Amo by Eccotemp failed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eccotemp replaced 40 of the units, and 14 of
them froze again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amo's counsel
argued that several homeowners experienced as many as three Eccotemp water
heater failures in their homes during the cold months.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Amo replaced the Eccotemp units with a
competitor’s units, those units did not fail.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Amo introduced evidence of a pattern of behavior by Eccotemp,
including evidence that homeowners in several states had similar problems with
the water heaters.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;">Eccotemp argued that the products' failure was not the result of a product defect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, it argued
Amo's employees installed the units in the homes incorrectly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eccotemp also claimed the homeowners contributed
to failure of the units and frozen water pipes by not allowing their pipes to
drip during cold weather.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Experts:</b>
Amo's expert was Gary Roland, a plumber in Lexington, South
Carolina.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Defendant’s expert was Michael
Richmond, a plumber in Charleston, South Carolina.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Alleged Damages:</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amo's counsel sought a recovery of
$158,000, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Amo's counsel requested that the damages be trebled pursuant to
the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Defendant’s counsel disputed these damages.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Result:</b> The
jury returned a Plaintiff’s verdict, in favor of Amo and determined the damages for breach of
warranty, breach of contract, and unfair trade practices totaled $750,000.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The jury apportioned $125,000 to breach of
warranty, $158,000 to breach of contract, and $474,000 to the unfair trade
practices claim.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Miscellaneous:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>The last demand in the case was
$85,000.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The last offer was $42,500,
which the write-up indicates was withdrawn.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>After the verdict, Eccotemp filed a motion for a mistrial, which was
denied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eccotemp filed a Notice of
Appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals and also filed for United States
Bankruptcy Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The write-up indicates the information contained therein was provided
by Plaintiff’s counsel, and none of the Defendants’ counsel responded to
inquiries.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;">Thanks to the May 2013, Volume 12, Issue 5 of Verdict
Search for this information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also
frequently use their verdict search engine, </span><a href="http://www.verdictsearch.com/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">www.verdictsearch.com</span></span></a><span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0pt;"><o:p> <span style="color: red;"><strong><em>This post is subject to the </em></strong><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;"><strong><em>DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE </em></strong></span></a><strong><em>of this website.
</em></strong></span></o:p></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-30661041289486865352013-06-17T09:25:00.000-04:002013-06-17T09:29:59.828-04:00CLE for ACC-South Carolina Chapter was a Success<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpEY8vDM_D0klrAgZYUK4X6w3MvtPbDgD6RnuvQKNbV5EtZpDXMJlHVgLFTcwHKFBuM8vThz72PIpFcpXFl2ZQNNKHS-o1lwc8PszffK3m_ha06Y1V-3HIW0QfAKeY8itW7sgS2c4gyxE/s1600/Playbill.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpEY8vDM_D0klrAgZYUK4X6w3MvtPbDgD6RnuvQKNbV5EtZpDXMJlHVgLFTcwHKFBuM8vThz72PIpFcpXFl2ZQNNKHS-o1lwc8PszffK3m_ha06Y1V-3HIW0QfAKeY8itW7sgS2c4gyxE/s1600/Playbill.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"> </a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpEY8vDM_D0klrAgZYUK4X6w3MvtPbDgD6RnuvQKNbV5EtZpDXMJlHVgLFTcwHKFBuM8vThz72PIpFcpXFl2ZQNNKHS-o1lwc8PszffK3m_ha06Y1V-3HIW0QfAKeY8itW7sgS2c4gyxE/s1600/Playbill.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpEY8vDM_D0klrAgZYUK4X6w3MvtPbDgD6RnuvQKNbV5EtZpDXMJlHVgLFTcwHKFBuM8vThz72PIpFcpXFl2ZQNNKHS-o1lwc8PszffK3m_ha06Y1V-3HIW0QfAKeY8itW7sgS2c4gyxE/s400/Playbill.jpg" width="400" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
My firm is a proud sponsor of the <a href="http://www.acc.com/chapters/sc/">Association of Corporate Counsel - South Carolina Chapter</a>, and I am the firm's primary liaison for this group. Last Friday, we conducted a three-hour continuing legal education seminar for the chapter, and I am happy to say that it went off without a hitch.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
My partners <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/attorneys-5.html">Christian Stegmaier</a> and <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/attorneys-16.html">Rebecca Halberg</a> presented on ethics in mediation. <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/attorneys-12.html">Joey McCue</a> presented on unconscionability in contractual provisions and leveraged from his experience in the recent South Carolina Supreme Court case of <em><a href="http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27236.pdf">Gladden v. Boykin</a></em>. <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/attorneys-47.html">Tom Bacon</a> presented on management of workers compensation claims. We also had <a href="http://www.scchamber.net/UserFiles/scchcom/Documents/Otis%20Bio_FINAL.pdf">Otis Rawl</a> from the <a href="http://www.scchamber.net/">South Carolina Chamber of Commerce</a> join us. He was kind enough to provide an overview of South Carolina's current business climate and the most recent legislative session.</div>
<br />
The picture above is of yours truly and was taken during my presentation: "How Did You Arrive at that Number? Objective and Quantitative Methods for Case Management and Evaluation." As I told our group, I had an experience in my first or second year of practice where a client asked me how I arrived at a certain settlement figure for a case. When my answer failed to provide any real process, I could tell that my client was "less than impressed." In other words, it was not apparent that I was adding any real "value" to the case.<br />
<br />
Since that time, I have taken an interest in how to evaluate a case and how to use a process to arrive at exposure, settlement value, etc. I finally had an opportunity to put it together in this presentation, and I enjoyed sharing it with our ACC attendees. Recently, I heard a speaker say, "All trial is theater." I think there is a lot of truth to that statement, so I arranged the presentation so as to approach case evaluation from the standpoint of a broadway play: the stars of the show, supporting case, directors, stage, etc. The picture above profiles two very different plays: "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_of_the_Opera_(1986_musical)">Phantom of the Opera</a>" (considered by many to be the standard of excellence in terms of theater) and "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_Murders">Moose Murders</a>" (widely considered to be the standard of awfulness, as it was shut down after one performance). As I told the crowd, is your case a "Phantom of the Opera," or is it a "Moose Murders"? We then went into the variables that can assist with this determination. It was a fun presentation to put together, and I may convert it to an article in the future.<br />
<br />
Thanks to all of my colleagues and Otis Rawl for their diligence in putting together this CLE!<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-8728513649798510462013-04-16T08:22:00.001-04:002013-04-16T08:22:48.930-04:00DRI Products Liability Conference De-Brief<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMFJOwtlDQkkOPMEyDPv7z9tJVLF2Y4c8Lcb-gFyU13x-LiU0WEQapU6woU1cQ_iqOMLTZnOhe6XH_TQO5DK6fIPUbXAnTxJJlGp5BulO8Th1cnYjHadETIp5_pHcG_1zByH7CovkXaZo/s1600/gaylord-national-resort-and-spa-oxon-hill-maryland-1241878_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; height: 239px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; width: 238px;"><img border="0" dua="true" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMFJOwtlDQkkOPMEyDPv7z9tJVLF2Y4c8Lcb-gFyU13x-LiU0WEQapU6woU1cQ_iqOMLTZnOhe6XH_TQO5DK6fIPUbXAnTxJJlGp5BulO8Th1cnYjHadETIp5_pHcG_1zByH7CovkXaZo/s200/gaylord-national-resort-and-spa-oxon-hill-maryland-1241878_3.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
I returned from the <a href="http://dri.org/">DRI</a> Products Liability Conference on April 5th, and I am just now getting around to blogging about it. This was my fourth conference, and my (and I believe DRI's) first at <a href="http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/wasgn-gaylord-national-resort-and-convention-center/">Gaylord National Resort</a> (picture to the right) in National Harbor, Maryland. <br />
<br />
From a programming and speakers standpoint, the conference was fantastic. The conference had an interactive mock trial component that allowed the audience to provide feedback during voir dire and closing argument demonstrations, and the case fact pattern was incorporated into numerous other presentations. <br />
<br />
I am proud to say that the Agricultural, Construction, Mining and Industrial Equipment ("ACMIE") Specialized Litigation Group ("SLG") breakout session went very well, and we got great feedback on the presentations from our attendees. I am not sure if it is the breadth of our subject matter or the thoughtful speakers we have each year, but our SLG always has a heavy turnout of attendees. This year was no exception. We probably had 80 to 100 people. I also attended the Consumer Products SLG to hear my friend and former colleague, <a href="http://www.nelsonmullins.com/attorneys/steve-morrison">Steve Morrison</a>, speak. As always, he did a fantastic job.<br />
<br />
In terms of networking....a very different story for yours truly. On the Monday prior to the conference, I got the "mother of all stomach bugs" and stayed out of work. On Tuesday, I awoke feeling like I was on the mend, and I flew to the conference. It only took about a day to realize I was <u>not</u> on the mend, and by Thursday I was crawling into my hotel bed. So...in short, it did not make for a great social experience. I managed to attend most of the CLE segments, and I was even able to catch up with some friends over a dinner or two. But, I doubt I was good company. Luckily, since the conference was on the east coast this year, my direct flight back had me home earlier than usual on Friday. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, special thanks to <a href="http://www.schwabe.com/showattorney.aspx?Show=9123">Anne Talcott</a> and <a href="http://www.wcsr.com/lawyers/james-e-weatherholtz">James Weatherholtz</a>, this year's Chair and Vice-Chair for the conference, who did an outstanding job. I liked the site, and even though I was a bit out of sorts with my stomach funk, I thought conference was fantastic. I am looking forward to next year's conference, and I have taken over the reins of the ACMIE SLG as the Chair, with <a href="http://www.butlersnow.com/mike_mcwilliams.aspx">Mike McWilliams</a> serving as my Vice-Chair. Special thanks to <a href="http://www.namanhowell.com/attorneys/j-k-leonard/">J.K. Leonard</a> for serving as our Chair for the last two years. J.K. was always on top of things, so I have some big shoes to fill. If you have any interest in getting involved in our SLG, please let me know.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-59217568033498125522013-03-29T09:50:00.001-04:002013-03-29T09:50:47.574-04:00New Captain of the Ship<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZKLUu4IIeq97y23p7V5BE-uePh3BVvr23nk1F3JL7PWysOuiyykrj_OrgL8-7Z20aSzoKuLLoYNfYL24WPT2zBwhUzONQPidb5GLpwqqVPXD0duu-Jt79rCFUASZ7-nZgl3AfJS9WSFs/s1600/62.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZKLUu4IIeq97y23p7V5BE-uePh3BVvr23nk1F3JL7PWysOuiyykrj_OrgL8-7Z20aSzoKuLLoYNfYL24WPT2zBwhUzONQPidb5GLpwqqVPXD0duu-Jt79rCFUASZ7-nZgl3AfJS9WSFs/s1600/62.jpg" usa="true" /></a>I wanted to briefly depart from my usual discussion of products liability and speaking/writing/CLE engagements to congratulate my friend and partner, <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/attorneys-46.html">Mike Pitts</a>, on becoming <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/">Collins & Lacy's</a> new Managing Partner. Mike is in our <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/offices-3.html">Greenville office</a>, and he practices primarily in <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/practices-7.html">labor and employment</a> law. He has an outstanding practice, and I think he will be a great Managing Partner. I look forward to working with Mike and seeing his leadership as we continue to grow our firm. Congratulations Mike! </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-90237914077452092692013-03-28T10:09:00.001-04:002013-03-28T10:11:01.201-04:00New SC Products Liability Decision: Courtney v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiE-SN2SWDAR0Z0Wc9pE9yGAp3A_7A08PGPaT5TjsrI2ZNPJ7eWj4Jr6AYuzaMTVyuw8y93d0RADab7gK5RP_88p6Q8sdXyyZgMfZP-fCeFzH07Xb523nkqkEeZVDju2Pig6-Ib7xY9AU/s1600/2000xterracroped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiE-SN2SWDAR0Z0Wc9pE9yGAp3A_7A08PGPaT5TjsrI2ZNPJ7eWj4Jr6AYuzaMTVyuw8y93d0RADab7gK5RP_88p6Q8sdXyyZgMfZP-fCeFzH07Xb523nkqkEeZVDju2Pig6-Ib7xY9AU/s400/2000xterracroped.jpg" usa="true" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: left;">
Yesterday, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a new products liability decision, <a href="http://sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5106.pdf"><em>Courtney</em><em> v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.</em>, Opinion Number 5106</a>. There were some real procedural issues in this case at the trial court level that prompted appeals by both the plaintiff and Nissan.</div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<strong>FACTUAL BACKGROUND:</strong> Minor plaintiff ("Plaintiff") was riding in the backseat of a 2000 Nissan Xterra. As Plaintiff's father made a left turn, the automobile was struck by an oncoming vehicle on the right side. Upon impact, a part of the automobile's frame punctured the fuel tank, resulting in a fire that injured Plaintiff and her mother.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<strong>PROCEDURE:</strong> Plaintiff filed suit against Nissan alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty based on a design defect theory. The case was tried over nine days. At the conclusion of evidence, the court denied Nissan's request to charge the jury on the necessity of proving feasible alternative design as an element of Plaintiff's case. The parties and the trial court agreed to submit seven special interrogatories to the jury, but the interrogatory concerning proof of feasible alternative design was to be shown to the jury <em>after</em> any verdict for damages. Nissan objected and requested that this interrogatory be submitted with the others. The trial court denied the request. </div>
<br />
The trial court did not differentiate between the <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Consumer%20Expectations%20Test">consumer expectations test and risk utility test</a> during its general charge to the jury on what Plaintiff had to prove in a design defect case. Although it later charge the jury on both tests, it omitted that Plaintiff had to prove a feasible design alternative pursuant to the risk-utility test. Prior to sending the jury to deliberate, the trial court told the jury it would be answering one additional interrogatory <em>after</em> the verdict was returned that was "irrelevant" to the deliberations.<br />
<br />
The jury rendered a verdict against Nissan for $2,375,000. The court then posed the seventh interrogatory to the jury (i.e., whether Plaintiff had proved a feasible alternative design that would have prevented the injury). The jury responded, "no." <br />
<br />
Nissan filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"), or in the alternative, for a new trial. Plaintiff filed a post-trial motion requesting the court disregard the jury's response to the seventh interrogatory. Initially, the trial court denied both parties' motions. However, three days later, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued its decision in <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html"><em>Branham v. Ford Motor Co.</em>, 390 S.C. 203, 701 S.E.2d 5 (2010)</a> in which it held that the risk-utility test was the exclusive test in a design defect case and required proof of feasible alternative design. The trial court had a second hearing, and it denied Nissan's JNOV motion but granted the motion for a new trial. Recognizing <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham</a></em>, the trial court issued an order in which it concluded its decision not to charge the jury on proof of a feasible alternative design was reversible error and required the grant of a new trial.<br />
<br />
<strong>ISSUES: </strong>Nissan appealed denial of its post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on Plaintiff's failure to prove feasible alternative design. Plaintiff also appealed the circuit court's decision to grant a new trial. Plaintiff also claimed the circuit court erred in denying her motion to invalidate a special interrogatory in which the jury found Plaintiff failed to prove a feasible alternative design in her case against Nissan.<br />
<br />
<strong>DISPOSITION:</strong> Affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals.<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<strong>RULES AND OPINION:</strong> The appellate court first addressed whether <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham</a></em> applied retroactively to the instant case. It reviewed <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham's</a> </em>facts and law and concluded that the South Carolina Supreme Court intended for <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham</a></em> to have retroactive application. <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham</a></em> recognized no new right or cause of action; it only affirmed that the risk-utility test would be the <em>exclusive</em> test for design defect cases. </div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Next, the appellate court held that the jury's post-verdict finding that Plaintiff failed to prove feasible alternative design did not entitled Nissan to JNOV. Nissan pointed out evidence in the record that Plaintiff agreed to craft the special interrogatory specifically to address feasible alternative design issues. Although the appellate court agreed, it cited to <em>Erickson v. Jones St. Publishers, LLC</em>, 368 S.C. 444, 480, 629 S.E. 2d 653, 672 (2006) for the principle that it is improper to submit factual issues to the jury in the form of non-binding "advisory interrogatories." Accordingly, the appellate court found that the trial court's denial of the JNOV motion indicated neither the parties nor the trial court intended for the answer to the interrogatory to be dispositive on the issue of liability. It also pointed out portions of the record to support that Plaintiff did not intend for the seventh interrogatory to impact liability. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
With regard to Plaintiff's cross appeal that the trial court erred in granting a new trial because the consumer expectations test was permissible at the time of decision, the appellate court pointed out it had already addressed this argument (i.e., <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham's</a></em> retroactive application). The appellate court also re-reviewed portions of <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham</a></em> to highlight that the both the majority and dissent agreed that the risk-utility test was the proper test in a design defect case, and the appellate court did not believe the the majority or dissent expressly condoned use of the consumer expectations test at the time of the instant trial. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Finally, Plaintiff argued that because the trial court charged on both the consumer expectations and risk-utility test, and the jury did not specify which theory it applied to determine liability, then the "two-issue rule" and the law of the case doctrine required reinstatement of the jury's verdict. The appellate court disagreed that these doctrines applied. Furthermore, <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham's</a></em> holding made clear that the jury's verdict could not be supported by the consumer expectations test. Although Nissan did not challenge the trial court's decision to incorporate the consumer expectations test into its jury charge, <em><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-brief-branham-v-ford-motor-co.html">Branham</a></em> had not been decided at the time and Nissan would not have had grounds to object. Therefore, Nissan's failure to object did not require reinstatement. The trial court's failure to properly instruct the jury was prejudicial to Nissan and required a new trial.</div>
<br />
<em><strong><span style="color: red;">This post is subject to the <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE </span></a>of this website. </span></strong></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-5380626169512145722013-03-27T08:13:00.001-04:002013-03-27T08:13:38.425-04:00DRI: One More Week<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8gFlekzfBy7w12nC2msXlXPXPcr3fweRDtoz8CYrcOtQS4lOcvUosclmRB4fJWZ9nvYZb1yCOLq1qRkgAoCQMrWzRRD6cFzlvMmwMI2FQqRNlpYa9MeQhyphenhyphenBKTx0FaBHf9ssQkx5xjY7U/s1600/dri-logo-new.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8gFlekzfBy7w12nC2msXlXPXPcr3fweRDtoz8CYrcOtQS4lOcvUosclmRB4fJWZ9nvYZb1yCOLq1qRkgAoCQMrWzRRD6cFzlvMmwMI2FQqRNlpYa9MeQhyphenhyphenBKTx0FaBHf9ssQkx5xjY7U/s400/dri-logo-new.png" usa="true" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I hope to see some readers at next week's <a href="http://dri.org/Event/20130200">DRI Products Liability Conference</a> in National Harbor, Maryland. The conference kicks off Tuesday evening with a networking reception and ends Friday afternoon. I have previously blogged about this year's conference (<a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-dri-products-liability-conference.html">here for all the details</a>). I am looking forward to making the trip, as this will be my fourth conference. </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As I have previously discussed in prior blog posts, I am Vice-Chair of the Agricultural, Construction, Mining and Industrial Equipment ("ACMIE") Specialized Litigation Group. We will have our breakout session next Wednesday afternoon, and we will have three outstanding presentations. Kurt Meaders (Sedgwick LLP) and Jaime Myers (Caterpillar Inc.) will present a program entitled "Shifting Gears on the Opposition's Experts--Deposition, <em>Daubert</em>, and Trial." Emily Muceus (Deere & Company) and Robert Walker (Gallagher Walker Bianco & Plastaras) will present a program entitled "From the Trenches: Trial Strategies in High Exposure, Bad Venue ACMIE Cases." Finally, we will do our annual "Top 10" ACMIE cases, which will be presented by Christopher Robinson (Frost Brown Todd, LLC). Our program is planned for April 3, 2013 from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m., so please consider it if you attend the conference. </span><br />
<br />
Finally, fellow ACMIE member <a href="http://www.butlersnow.com/mike_mcwilliams.aspx">Mike McWilliams</a> and I are hosting two "luncharounds" on April 3 and April 4. Mike is hosting the April 3 lunch at <a href="http://www.mcloonespierhousenh.com/">McLoone's Pier House</a>, and I am hosting the April 4 lunch at <a href="http://nationalharbor.com/restaurants/pienza-italian-market/">Pienza Restaurant</a>. Space is limited to ten people per lunch (first come first serve), so please email me at <a href="mailto:bcomer@collinsandlacy.com">bcomer@collinsandlacy.com</a> if you want to get your name of the list for either of these ACMIE luncharounds.<br />
<br />
Hope to see you there!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-19229420536398546372013-03-26T10:17:00.002-04:002013-04-16T08:25:54.334-04:00Janssen Pharmaceutical Risperdal Appeal<div style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivczBxI_dDuAlWeeMnYOK9P41rg6KFR8eBMf-_ih7cY6f__wraDtnIU-gjK8qqvuqd0UNWA3RTRXjoAsqu77mFmwI97iIfxmM9w5xRFgWPFSVPEJwIP6BBu-1HsOCvuySXntsFiM-d9js/s1600/220px-Risperdal_tablets.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivczBxI_dDuAlWeeMnYOK9P41rg6KFR8eBMf-_ih7cY6f__wraDtnIU-gjK8qqvuqd0UNWA3RTRXjoAsqu77mFmwI97iIfxmM9w5xRFgWPFSVPEJwIP6BBu-1HsOCvuySXntsFiM-d9js/s1600/220px-Risperdal_tablets.jpg" /></a><a href="http://sclawyersweekly.com/">South Carolina Lawyers Weekly</a> ran an article last week concerning Janssen Pharmaceutica's appeal of a <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/06/exclusive-copy-of-judges-penalty-order.html">$327 million penalty handed down by Judge Robert Couch in 2011</a>. I did extensive blogging about this case in March and June of 2011, and you can find those posts either by searching "Risperdal" in the search bar above or by clicking <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/03/south-carolina-attorney-generals.html">here</a> (March 9, 2011), <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/03/update-south-carolina-attorney-generals.html">here</a> (March 22, 2011), <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/03/jury-reaches-verdict-in-south-carolina.html">here</a> (March 23, 2011), <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/06/sc-judge-hands-down-damages-order-in.html">here</a> (June 6, 2011), and <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/06/exclusive-copy-of-judges-penalty-order.html">here</a> (June 7, 2011, which is a link to Judge Couch's Order concerning damages). </div>
<br />
According to the article, Janssen's attorney argued before the South Carolina appellate court that Janssen did not mean to deceive anyone, and no one in the state was hurt. The attorney representing South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson argued Janssen had a duty to update its labels when it learned of study results showing a possible link to weight gain and diabetes. According to the article, the court is likely to issue its decision in several months. A direct link to the article can be found <a href="http://sclawyersweekly.com/news/2013/03/21/drug-maker-asks-court-to-overturn-327m-penalty/?utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=03-21-13+South+Carolina+Lawyers+Weekly+Daily+Alert&utm_content=Drug+maker+asks+court+to+overturn+%24327M+penalty">here</a>. A cut and paste of the article is below. Nice coverage by <a href="http://sclawyersweekly.com/">South Carolina Lawyers Weekly</a>.<br />
<br />
<strong>Drug maker asks court to overturn $327M penalty </strong><br />
<br />
By The Associated Press <br />
Published: March 21, 2013 <br />
Time posted: 4:20 pm <br />
<br />
COLUMBIA (AP) - South Carolina's high court should overturn a penalty of hundreds of millions of dollars over deceptive drug marketing in part because the manufacturer didn't mean to deceive anyone, and no one in the state was hurt, an attorney for a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary argued before justices on Thursday.<br />
<br />
Mitch Brown represents Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., a subsidiary of New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson. The drug maker is challenging a Spartanburg County jury's 2011 decision that Janssen broke the law by writing to thousands of South Carolina doctors, downplaying the links between diabetes and its schizophrenia drug Risperdal, and by improperly claiming the drug was safer than competing medications, like Eli Lilly & Co.'s Zyprexa.<br />
<br />
"The conduct hasn't caused one South Carolinian any harm," Brown told the state Supreme Court. "The state can't get any penalties without showing the element of willfulness. There wasn't any evidence that any doctor was misled."<br />
<br />
Janssen has been litigating throughout the country over its Risperdal marketing, announcing in August a $181 million settlement with 36 states and the District of Columbia. Janssen admitted no wrongdoing, and South Carolina was not part of that deal.<br />
<br />
First launched in 1994, the blockbuster anti-psychotic drug Risperdal lost patent protection in 2008. Johnson & Johnson has said that Risperdal Consta, the long-acting version of the drug, generated $1.4 billion in sales last year.<br />
<br />
After the South Carolina jury's decision, a state judge assessed a $327 million penalty against Janssen, the largest drug marketing award in state history and the largest penalty levied for violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.<br />
<br />
Circuit Judge Roger Couch assessed a $300 penalty per sample box of the drug that was distributed. He also assessed a $4,000 penalty per publication of the "Dear Doctor" letter, writing that Janssen knew Risperdal was associated with health problems but intentionally hid studies to that effect, instead telling doctors their drug led to lower incidence of diabetes and weight gain than a competing medicine.<br />
<br />
Justice John Kittredge argued to Brown that, while the sample box labels in question had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the drug company should still bear some responsibility in ensuring that its products and marketing aren't also in violation of state laws.<br />
"You're putting it on the back of the FDA to be the police of this," Kittredge said.<br />
<br />
John Simmons, who made arguments on behalf of Attorney General Alan Wilson, called the circuit judge's opinion "thoughtful" and said Janssen should have updated its labels as soon as it learned of study results showing the drug's possible links to weight gain and diabetes.<br />
<br />
"Janssen had a duty to put that in the warning section," Simmons said. "Janssen hid unfavorable clinical evidence."<br />
<br />
The court will likely issue its decision in several months. Should they opt to reduce the award against Janssen, Brown asked justices to determine "a reasonable penalty amount" themselves and not leave that decision up to a lower court judge.<br />
<br />
The company is also appealing an Arkansas judge's decision ordering Janssen to pay more than $1.2 billion in fines, as well as a $258 million verdict in Louisiana. Two cases against Janssen in Pennsylvania and West Virginia were eventually dismissed.<br />
<span style="color: red;"><em>This post is subject to the </em><span style="color: #bb5532;"><em><strong><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE</span></a> </strong></em></span><em>of this website.</em></span> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-83816150687723623042013-03-14T09:24:00.001-04:002013-03-14T09:24:08.768-04:00Upcoming CLE for In-House Counsel<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPTa5X4RS9VnvbT-DTn9WjvPklrlXeNuDUyqn1LJlb6VQZgZ4TEcCBQiIJwmdpGYGQQ8ZEyDVqsa4F0ppfPMf52Ggn4QPk_MHU_pppVyOk_8QzjFTiE2IEUFEuecV5klpcauqqMAcCcXE/s1600/ACC_SC_Banner_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="100" psa="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPTa5X4RS9VnvbT-DTn9WjvPklrlXeNuDUyqn1LJlb6VQZgZ4TEcCBQiIJwmdpGYGQQ8ZEyDVqsa4F0ppfPMf52Ggn4QPk_MHU_pppVyOk_8QzjFTiE2IEUFEuecV5klpcauqqMAcCcXE/s400/ACC_SC_Banner_1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I am my firm's primary contact person for our relationship with the <a href="http://www.acc.com/chapters/sc/">South Carolina Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel</a> ("ACC-SC"), and we are planning an exciting continuing legal education ("CLE") seminar for this summer that I wanted to share with readers (especially if you are in-house and find your way to this site). Planning this seminar has consumed a pretty good amount of my time, but I think it will be worthwhile. I conferred with various members of the ACC-SC about topics of interest to them, "dos and don'ts," and how we can maximize the interest level of members. (Make no mistake, I would love nothing more than to do a products-centric CLE, but the reality is that ACC-SC members covers a broad range of businesses, many of which are not involved with product manufacturing/distribution/sale). <br />
<br />
The result is that we have a CLE that should appeal to a broad range of practice areas and will be convenient for ACC-SC's members. Unlike previous CLEs we have done for this group, we are going to do an in-person seminar in our Columbia office while simultaneously broadcasting the event live in our Greenville and Charleston offices. This will allow ACC-SC members to attend the event with little travel time, and it will enable them to ask questions of our attorneys in each location, in addition to networking with fellow ACC-SC members. The CLE will run from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the following locations: <br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./offices-1.html" target="_blank" title="">Columbia Collins & Lacy Office</a> – 1330 Lady Street, Sixth Floor
<li><a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./offices-3.html" target="_blank" title="">Greenville Collins & Lacy Office</a> – 37 Villa Road, Suite 500
<li><a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./offices-6.html" target="_blank" title="">Charleston Collins & Lacy Office</a> – 200 Meeting Street, Suite 403 </li>
</li>
</li>
</ul>
Our attorneys will present the following CLE topics: <br />
<ul>
<li>“Ethics and Professionalism in Mediating Your Case,” presented by <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./attorneys-5.html" target="_blank" title="">Christian Stegmaier</a> and <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./attorneys-16.html" target="_blank" title="">Rebecca Halberg</a>
<li>“How Did You Arrive at that Number? Objective and Quantitative Methods for Case Management and Evaluation,” presented by <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./attorneys-41.html" target="_blank" title="">Brian Comer</a> (yours truly)
<li>“What’s Going on at the State House? A Legislative Update from the 2013 Legislative Session,” presented by <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./attorneys-45.html" target="_blank" title="">Jon Ozmint</a>
<li>“I Liked It When I Signed It, But I Don’t Like It Now – It Must Be Unconscionable,” presented by <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./attorneys-12.html" target="_blank" title="">Joey McCue </a>
<li>“The Proactive Approach to Workers' Compensation Claims,” presented by <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com./attorneys-44.html" target="_blank" title="">Kristian Cross</a></li>
</li>
</li>
</li>
</li>
</ul>
I am excited about my piece of this seminar. When I was fresh out of law school and beginning to practice, I recall speaking with a client about my evaluation of a case. During the conversation, the client asked a fair question: "If we were to settle, what do you consider to be the settlement value, and how did you arrive at that number?" I recall -- as a young(er) attorney -- not having a great answer: "Well, uh . . . I just thought about . . . uh . . . the injury, and you know this . . . uh . . . is a bad venue . . . and it just seems like a fair number." The client was not very impressed, and it taught me a valuable lesson. <br />
<br />
Now, one of my guiding principles in my practice is "How am I adding value for this client?" At the time of my client's question, I had no value-added methodology for evaluating a case. However, since that time, I have developed various "tools" I use to evaluate cases based on research, quantitative analysis, and objective criteria. Now, when I am posed with the same question, I can provide my client with a methodology that supports my evaluation and provides them with justification they can share internally with other decision-makers. I have always wanted to put it together in a presentation, and this CLE affords me the opportunity.<br />
<br />
So, if you practice in-house and want three hours of "meaty" CLE credit, I invite you to attend our CLE at one of our sites. It is free to in-house counsel, but you must register to attend. For more information and to RSVP, please contact <a href="mailto:kyates@capconsc.com?subject=ACC-SC%20CLE%20June%2014%2C%202013" title="">Keely Yates</a> at the ACC-SC Chapter office, 803-252-1087.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-70240594878519282062013-02-12T17:15:00.001-05:002013-02-12T17:15:48.728-05:00Verdict Survey: Chicken Sandwich in Cherokee County<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhyskRc0lzTk6zi7ViUiIzrWn7jprcjse2XkyKRZ0rKbfskQD4aIZwJChCzcPvOGHIFclN5Z-LP38lmADN3hxFpvfr8emGHNqLesLdZ-e9iwTCS3OaGcKyjDqXQBElC-oBhEATV-8nelk/s1600/chickenRoyalePlain3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhyskRc0lzTk6zi7ViUiIzrWn7jprcjse2XkyKRZ0rKbfskQD4aIZwJChCzcPvOGHIFclN5Z-LP38lmADN3hxFpvfr8emGHNqLesLdZ-e9iwTCS3OaGcKyjDqXQBElC-oBhEATV-8nelk/s200/chickenRoyalePlain3.gif" uea="true" width="200" /></a></div>
Remember that <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/verdict-survey-playground-equipment-in.html">blog about me posting regular content in the form of verdict surveys every week</a>? Yeah, me neither. Sorry for the hiatus. This week's verdict survey involves a hot chicken sandwich.<br />
<br />
<strong>Capsule Summary:</strong> A Cherokee County jury returned a defense verdict in a claim brought by a male plaintiff in his mid-forties in which he alleged the chicken sandwich he purchased from a Burger King was too hot and caused second degree burns to his gums.<br />
<br />
<strong>Case Information:</strong> <em>Frank Chancellor v. Carrols Corporation d/b/a Burger King Restaurants</em>, Civil Action Number 2008CP1100139.<br />
<br />
<strong>Date of Verdict:</strong> March 3, 2010.<br />
<br />
<strong>Venue:</strong> <a href="http://www.sccourts.org/countyLookup.cfm?countyNo=11">Cherokee County Court of Common Pleas</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Judge:</strong> <a href="http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/circuitCourt/displaycirjudge.cfm?judgeid=2132">The Honorable J. Mark Hayes, II</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Factual Background:</strong> A father went with his son to a Burger King Restaurant owned by the defendant, Carrols Corporation. The plaintiff placed a carryout order for a kid's meal for his son and a chicken sandwich for himself. Once they were on the road, the plaintiff unwrapped the chicken sandwich and took a bite. The bite of sandwich lodged in an area of the plaintiff's mouth where he was missing some teeth, and he alleged it caused second degree burns to his gums.<br />
<br />
<strong>Allegations and Procedure:</strong> Plaintiff filed his lawsuit in the Cherokee County Court of Common Pleas. He alleged a cause of action for breach of warranty of merchantability on grounds that the sandwich was too hot. The defendant argued that customers wanted their sandwiches to be hot. They also argued the plaintiff's actions were inconsistent with his allegations, especially by the fact that he did not seek treatment from his doctor for the alleged injury.<br />
<br />
<strong>Experts:</strong> None listed.<br />
<br />
<strong>Alleged Damages:</strong> Plaintiff was a married male in his mid-forties. He was employed by General Electric. He alleged $1,500 in past medical special damages.<br />
<br />
<strong>Disposition:</strong> After 15 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><em>This post is subject to the </em><span style="color: #bb5532;"><em><strong><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE</span></a> </strong></em></span><em>of this website.</em></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-21443742758309292802013-01-29T14:21:00.000-05:002013-01-29T14:24:43.041-05:002013 DRI Products Liability Conference<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8rLyMNDMmxCvWE5EPiFibDDSpJSPlkDavM6d87oo7MO7uwlC8MDodUBUg32ljlYiKsfffFToWV_Jq9DYRSl5mExDEVAtldPNMtGXybEGxHo0i8m_F5REm6_eUHkCmtHn6HKk_eTok2sk/s1600/dri-logo-new.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ea="true" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8rLyMNDMmxCvWE5EPiFibDDSpJSPlkDavM6d87oo7MO7uwlC8MDodUBUg32ljlYiKsfffFToWV_Jq9DYRSl5mExDEVAtldPNMtGXybEGxHo0i8m_F5REm6_eUHkCmtHn6HKk_eTok2sk/s400/dri-logo-new.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div align="center">
<br /></div>
<span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Since 2010, I have made it a priority to attend the <a href="http://dri.org/">Defense Research Institute's</a> <a href="http://dri.org/Event/20130200">Products Liability Conference</a>. This year's conference is </span></span><span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;">being held April 3-5, 2013, in the Washington, D.C. area at <a href="http://www.gaylordhotels.com/gaylord-national/">Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center</a> in National Harbor, Maryland. As this is the time of the year when the cherry blossoms bloom in the Washington D.C. area, the theme of this year's conference is "Make Your Products Liability Practice Bloom." </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="640530923-28012013">This conference is always outstanding. I try to attend it each year because (1) the programming keeps me updated from a practice standpoint, and (2) now that I have attended for a few years, there are more and more "familiar faces" for networking purposes. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="640530923-28012013">In addition, I am in my second year serving as the Agricultural, Construction, Mining and Industrial Equipment ("ACMIE") Specialized Litigation Group ("SLG") co-chair. We always have a breakout session at this conference, and there are some great topics and speakers this year. Members </span><span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Kurt Meaders (Sedgwick LLP) and Jaime Myers (Caterpillar Inc.) will present a program entitled "Shifting Gears on the Opposition's Experts--Deposition, <em>Daubert</em>, and Trial." This presentation will focus on strategy for dealing with plaintiff's experts at the discovery, dispositive motion, and trial stages. Emily Muceus (Deere & Company) and Robert Walker (Gallagher Walker Bianco & Plastaras) will present a program entitled "From the Trenches: Trial Strategies in High Exposure, Bad Venue ACMIE Cases." As its title suggests, this program is designed to arm our members with trial tactics that can assist in defending the toughest ACMIE cases at trial. Finally, we will do our annual "Top 10" ACMIE cases, which will be presented by Christopher Robinson (Frost Brown Todd, LLC). Our SLG program is planned for April 3, 2013 from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="640530923-28012013"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If you have not already registered, I would urge you to plan to attend this conference and participate in our SLG meeting. All of the information about the conference and registration can be found at <a href="http://dri.org/Event/20130200">this link</a>,</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> and I hope you will make plans to attend. </span></span> </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-86167449568970235062012-12-31T10:51:00.002-05:002012-12-31T10:51:50.874-05:00Holiday Case Brief and Verdict Survey: Gasque v. Heublein, Inc.<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivJXH-iovrlN2eZewomorq9nanRVgp8kssM4SY4Z295fNyZtK9enMqezNtCiE_Rh0Dwik0G9QUBCYUJ2MqMgrdFxDauZPAWvsC8-vDFnb1StQOlJ8K5PbQ_yQ1uzsfS2PFOLuGUonvhK4/s1600/popping-champaign-cork.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" eea="true" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivJXH-iovrlN2eZewomorq9nanRVgp8kssM4SY4Z295fNyZtK9enMqezNtCiE_Rh0Dwik0G9QUBCYUJ2MqMgrdFxDauZPAWvsC8-vDFnb1StQOlJ8K5PbQ_yQ1uzsfS2PFOLuGUonvhK4/s320/popping-champaign-cork.jpg" width="244" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I hope you have enjoyed the holidays and are ready for the new year. This has been one of my busiest times around the holidays in awhile, but I could not miss the opportunity to do a holiday season "food" post. Last year, I tried to do a comprehensive series about South Carolina's products liability law in the context of food cases. However, I missed one of the more interesting cases, and I thought it would be blogworthy at this time of year (especially in light of the amount of wine and champagne that will be consumed this evening). <em>Gasque v. Heublein, Inc.</em>, 281 S.C. 278, 315 S.E.2d 556 (Ct. App. 1984) involves a cork that prematurely ejected and caused injury to a plaintiff's eye. An Horry County jury returned a verdict for $750,000, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>FACTUAL BACKGROUND:</strong> Plaintiff sustained permanent loss of vision in his left eye when he was struck by the stopper and cork assembly of a bottle of Jacques Bonet Cold Duck sparkling wine. 281 S.C. at 281, 315 S.E.2d at 558. The stopper allegedly ejected prematurely when Plaintiff's friend was twisting the wire retaining hood on the cork. <em>Id</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>PROCEDURE:</strong> Plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer-bottlers ("Defendants") of the sparkling wine, as well as three other defendants in the chain of distribution. 281 S.C. at 281, 315 S.E.2d at 558. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for negligence, warranty, and strict liability, and he sought actual and punitive damages. <em>Id</em>. The case was submitted to the jury on the theories of negligence and strict liability. <em>Id</em>. The jury returned a general verdict for $750,000 in actual damages against Defendants. <em>Id</em>. <br /><br /><strong>ISSUES:</strong> There were three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in submitting the issues of negligent (a) design, (b) manufacture, (c) inspection, and (d) failure to warn; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a filmed experiment conducted by Plaintiff's expert; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Defendants' motion for a new trial absolute on grounds that the verdict was actuated by passion, prejudice and caprice. 281 S.C. at 281, 315 S.E.2d at 558. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><strong>DISPOSITION:</strong> The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on all three issues.<br /><br /><strong>OPINION:</strong> The appellate court addressed each of the issues in the order in which they were raised, as set forth below.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em><u>(1) Submission of Negligence Theories</u></em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With regard to negligent design, Plaintiff presented reports of studies commissioned by one of the Defendants concerning premature ejection of champagne stoppers. 281 S.C. at 282, 315 S.E.2d at 559. The reports identified the problem of premature ejection and suggested design alternatives to correct it. <em>Id</em>. at 282-83, 315 S.E.2d at 559. Defendants' Quality Control Director also testified that before Defendants' switched from wood stoppers to polyethylene stoppers, they had no reports of injuries. <em>Id</em>. One of the reports also discussed the various problems with polyethylene stoppers versus wood stoppers. <em>Id</em>. In short, the evidence showed Defendants were aware of the problem of premature ejection, knew about feasible alternative designs, were aware that wood corks were safer, and elected to use an undrilled and uncoated polyethylene stopper to retain the festive "pop" of the cork. <em>Id</em>. at 283, 315 S.E.2d at 559. Plaintiff also presented expert testimony in support of his theory. <em>Id</em>. at 284, 315 S.E.2d at 559. The evidence was sufficient to submit the issue of negligent design to the jury.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With regard to negligent manufacture, Plaintiff presented the cork at issue and had his expert testify there was a groove on it that was distinguishable from other stoppers. <em>Id</em>. at 284, 315 S.E.2d at 560. Plaintiff's expert testified the groove was caused by improper attachment of the wire retainer to the stopper during manufacture, and this manufacturing defect contributed to premature ejection. <em>Id</em>. Based on this evidence, the court upheld submission of negligent manufacture to the jury. <em>Id</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With regard to negligent inspection, the court concluded that the testimony of Defendants' Quality Control Director supported submission of this issue to the jury. <em>Id</em>. at 285, 315 S.E.2d at 560. The director testified a pressure check was performed on only one out of every 30,000 to 40,000 bottles, and quality control personnel had only one or two seconds to ascertain whether or not the wire hood was properly attached to the stopper. <em>Id</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With regard to negligent failure to warn, the court concluded that the warning at issue was approximately 1/8 the size of the print used to advertise the product's name, and it did not mention premature ejection (just that the contents were under high pressure and that the bottle should be pointed away). <em>Id</em>. The court held the language of the warning, its placement, and print size created a jury question as to its adequacy. <em>Id</em>. The issue of negligent failure to wan was properly submitted to the jury. <em>Id</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em><u>(2) Admission Into Evidence of Filmed Experiment</u></em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To be admissible at trial, an experiment or test must have been made under conditions and circumstances substantially similar to those prevailing at the time of the occurrence involved in the controversy. Id. at 286, 315 S.E.2d at 560 (citing <em>Weaks v. South Carolina State Highway Dep't</em>, 250 S.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 234 (1968)). Plaintiff's expert introduced a filmed experiment conducted by his expert where a stopper in the product at issue spontaneously ejected when the expert began twisting the wire retaining hood. <em>Id</em>. The trial judge allowed the jury to view the experiment. <em>Id</em>. Defendants argued the admission was error because the experiment utilized champagne (instead of sparkling wine), involved a different size bottle, and had different temperatures. <em>Id</em>. at 286, 315 S.E.2d 560-61. Plaintiff's expert testified the properties the experimental bottle were substantially the same. <em>Id</em>., 315 S.E.2d at 561. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court noted that admission of evidence is a matter for the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion. <em>Id</em>. The court also noted that Defendants vigorously cross examined the expert on the distinctions between the experiment and and facts of the case. <em>Id</em>. at 287, 315 S.E.2d at 561. The court held the conditions of the filmed experiment were substantially similar to those existing at the time of injury. <em>Id</em>. However, even if they were not, this issue did not warrant reversal because the experiment was cumulative of other evidence introduced by Plaintiff (including testimony of the friend who opened the bottle, experts, and the information contained in Defendants' reports about premature ejection). <em>Id</em>. (citing <em>Beasley v. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp.</em>, 273 S.C. 523, 257 S.E.2d 726 (1979)).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em><u>(3) Excessiveness of Verdict</u></em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court noted it has limited power to interfere with verdict amounts, which are left almost entirely to the judge and jury. <em>Id</em>. at 287, 315 S.E.2d at 561 (citing Charles v. Texas Co., 199 S.C. 156, 18 S.E.2d 719, 729 (1942)). The court cannot reduce a verdict, and it will only strike a verdict down completely if the amount is so shockingly excessive as to indicate it is the result of passion, caprice, and prejudice. <em>Id</em>. In view of the severity and permanency of Plaintiff's injury, the court did not find the verdict of $750,000 to be excessive. <em>Id</em>. at 288, 315 S.E.2d at 562. In short, there was substantial evidence concerning Plaintiff's pain, multiple surgeries, impact on vision, and change in lifestyle. <em>Id</em>. at 288-89, 315 S.E.2d at 562. Based on the evidence, the court did not find the verdict to be excessive. It also reviewed verdicts for loss of vision cases elsewhere that were also similar to the jury's verdict. <em>Id</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<em><strong><span style="color: red;">This post is subject to the <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/welcome-to-my-blog.html"><span style="color: #bb5532;">DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE </span></a>of this website. </span></strong></em></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-24039659840291933082012-12-18T08:16:00.000-05:002012-12-18T08:16:00.184-05:00Catching Up and Latest Publication<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnVUAvuWVGbLVBtcSLN_pyo1iGeq6cMro1TsWmywp9ttMCDovSxsGa3MaBu6qg5ZTWLJBysOIx_GEdjxi3YYcTq2cYrIQ4rGdiNmdnSY9GKIh1y2HDBSxX46Nn9EsE3WzWkgatB5a1OOM/s1600/Tired-SantaClaus-icon.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" eea="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnVUAvuWVGbLVBtcSLN_pyo1iGeq6cMro1TsWmywp9ttMCDovSxsGa3MaBu6qg5ZTWLJBysOIx_GEdjxi3YYcTq2cYrIQ4rGdiNmdnSY9GKIh1y2HDBSxX46Nn9EsE3WzWkgatB5a1OOM/s1600/Tired-SantaClaus-icon.png" /></a></div>
Apologies are in order from the South Carolina Products Liability Law Blog. I was able to do a flurry of posts back in November, which helped me catch up on quite a bit of blogging. However, with the holiday season and with many of my cases rearing their heads in December, it has been difficult to post lately. (The image posted with this blog is one of the images you find when you do a google image search of "tired" and "Santa").<br />
<br />
So...what's new? The <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2012/11/upcoming-december-12-milestone-and.html">webinar for Primerus</a> went very well, as we had about thirty people who virtually "attended" and followed the presentation. I am sure the <a href="http://www.primerus.com/product-liability-practice-group.htm">Primerus Products Liability Executive Committee</a> will plan some similar presentations in 2013, so stay tuned on that front. You may also recall my fortieth birthday was the same day as the presentation. Luckily, I managed to get through the entirety of my portion without having an episode of memory loss. (That was a joke...you can laugh). <br />
<br />
In addition, my colleague <a href="http://www.collinsandlacy.com/attorneys-44.html">Kristian Cross</a> and I authored an article entitled "Managing Litigation Risk: Practice Pointers From 'Soup to Nuts'" in the most recent edition of the <a href="http://www.acc.com/chapters/sc/">Association of Corporate Counsel (South Carolina Chapter)</a> e-newsletter. You can find it at <a href="http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/accscar/issues/2012-12-18.html">this link</a>. <br />
<br />
Finally, one of the things I regret about being so busy this December is that I have not been able to do a food-centered holiday series. (You can see prior posts in December 2010 and 2011 <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2010/12/tis-season-for-good-foodand-warnings.html">here</a> and <a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2011/12/holiday-season-food-law-part-iv-food.html">here</a>). However, I hope to get one or two up the latter part of this week, or maybe headed into the New Year. Be sure to check back.<br />
<br />
I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-81632330215641776272012-11-22T07:58:00.001-05:002012-11-22T07:58:21.995-05:00Happy Thanksgiving from the South Carolina Products Liability Law Blog!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxnDFyoIOtYEoTU3HvOxjJ-24elvgDdO2pr8uphKq_196V2tDQrsqs_G7ScGTDsNTOjMTCbABNWu53Q4MNi0g' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Happy Thanksgiving from the South Carolina Products Liability Law Blog! Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday because I like to cook, I like to eat, and I really do not like to shop. Therefore, it is right up my alley.<br />
<br />
I have a few traditions for each Thanksgiving. I enjoy a great meal, usually take a strong nap, watch a bit of whatever basketball or football games are on during the day, and I ALWAYS find time to watch <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093748/">Planes, Trains, and Automobiles</a>. Thanksgiving movies do not get the hype that Christmas movies do, but this one is a classic. If you have never seen it, the nutshell is that a marketing executive's travel plans get derailed and he has to find alternative methods to get home for Thanksgiving. Along, the way, he meets Dell Griffith...one of the great, annoying, loveable characters in movie history. Dell also has a history, which Steve Martin's character does not learn about until the end. It is a hysterical movie, and also pretty heart-warming.<br />
<br />
Anyway, trailer above and funny scene below. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwtLJVmAWBu6Cb-JF37WMWAzuACsaMVk2wzMs0kAR4l6KTsT5LRol8YKqpyBdV6OnYRb6Dsf9VtrAonbG9v1g' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-85451934315014980732012-11-21T08:07:00.002-05:002012-11-21T08:07:55.162-05:00How I Fry a Turkey<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIxhCCSBfCCliWSUbZlrEzByEc8fCHutTM5DNVFv6yP7e-16BCOWtg7OynlRcfcpOBBLD_nU6blH0aeQ3SeFBJUAfkOsnNp315KeUkyhE3oByXv-De_De1CwBDcFdXO1VPApUUSv3SFVU/s1600/king-kooker-ss-30-pks-stainless-steel-turkey-fryer-pot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" rea="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIxhCCSBfCCliWSUbZlrEzByEc8fCHutTM5DNVFv6yP7e-16BCOWtg7OynlRcfcpOBBLD_nU6blH0aeQ3SeFBJUAfkOsnNp315KeUkyhE3oByXv-De_De1CwBDcFdXO1VPApUUSv3SFVU/s1600/king-kooker-ss-30-pks-stainless-steel-turkey-fryer-pot.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yesterday, I mentioned that I wrote a summary for a friend awhile back of how I fry a turkey. I'm not saying this is the best way to fry a turkey, but this is how we roll at the South Carolina Products Liability Law Blog when it comes to turkey frying.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have also learned some lessons about how to save some time on the clean-up, which I share below. Fried turkey is crazy delicious, but be careful. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>TIPS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE</u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">PREPARATION</b>:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
First, I would not recommend a “Butterball” turkey for frying.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not sure what it is about them, but I don’t think they fry up very well (especially if you are injecting marinade).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
Makes sure the turkey is fully thawed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, rinse the turkey thoroughly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A good way to do this is to put the turkey in your fryer pot and fill the pot with water to rinse it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once the water fully covers the turkey, take the turkey out and note where the water level drops to, and mark it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now you know how much oil you need to put in the fryer pot for your turkey to be submerged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(This is just a way to save oil; you can put in as much oil as you want, but it increases clean-up and also increases the risk of overflow, which is very dangerous).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
Dry the turkey thoroughly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is any water on it, it will pop when you put it in the oil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Make sure it is good and dry.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
You don’t have to do anything, as fried turkey is delicious without any “extras.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, I use fat-free Italian dressing as my injectable marinade.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I strain the herbs out first, and then I inject the marinade throughout the turkey.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also coat the outside of the turkey all over with the marinade.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After this step, I coat the turkey heavily with Tony Chachere’s Cajun seasoning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After this preparation, put the turkey in the refrigerator overnight.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">FRYING</b>:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
Do the frying of the turkey on the grass somewhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There will be a little popping and grease residue that gets out of the pot, and if you are doing it on concrete, it will get on there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not a big deal, as it will wear off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it also makes it easy to track oil into the house, which never goes well with the wife.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For this reason, I do it in my backyard on the grass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, do it away from your house.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://scproductsliabilitylaw.blogspot.com/2012/11/its-turkey-frying-season.html">Plenty of people have burned their houses down while frying a turkey, so you don’t want to be one of them.</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You don't have to be 100 yards away from your home, but the point is not to do it in your garage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A back patio away from the house or in the yard is fine.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
I use peanut oil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can’t speak to other kinds of oils.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The cardinal rule about oil is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>do not mix poultry and seafood oil</u></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your turkey will taste fishy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can fry anything else with turkey (hushpuppies, vegetables, etc.).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, if you are using oil that you have used in the past for seafood frying, my experience is you taste the seafood in the turkey.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Before I put the bird in the oil, I give it a fresh coat of Tony Chachere's. Some of it usually drips off overnight, so I like a good coating before putting it in the oil. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
As for the actual cooking, in my experience, the key to frying a turkey is watching the temperature and watching the time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Generally, I fry my turkey at 325 degrees for three-and-a-half minutes per pound. That being said, before I put the turkey in the oil, I heat it to about 350 degrees. The reason is that when I put the cold turkey in the oil, it usually decreases the temperature a fair amount. Therefore, I have it a little hotter at the beginning so that (hopefully) the equilibrium is about 325 degrees when the turkey is lowered in the oil.<br />
<br />
As I cook, I compensate with more or less time depending on my ability to keep the temperature at 325.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it gets too hot, I turn the burner off until the temperature comes down, and I may reduce the fry time a bit to compensate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it gets too cold, I turn the burner up and may add some frying time depending on how long it takes to get it back to 325.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point is to watch your gauge and try to keep it around that temperature, and compensate as needed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
When the turkey is ready, lift it out and set it on some paper towels to strain off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I usually just let it sit outside on the paper towels for about 15 minutes to cool and drip off oil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then I slide it off the lowering tool into a pan, take it inside, and pick it off the bone.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
If I am frying multiple things over a few days, I don’t bother with cleaning the oil out of the pot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I just put it in a safe place to cool and store until the next day. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">CLEAN-UP AND STORAGE OF OIL</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
I've always read that oil is good for a year, and I've practiced that and never had any issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I find turkeys get better with every fry because the oil is good and seasoned.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
When you are done frying for good and want to clean up, I've found the following to be the easiest way:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
Let oil cool completely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Get someone to help you, and have one person hold an oil funnel while the other pours the oil out of the pot and back into the original container.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Try to keep from spilling the oil outside the funnel, because if you do, it can get on the side of the container in which you are storing the oil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this happens, you now have to clean up the container (in addition to everything else you are cleaning).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lowe's sells turkey frying peanut oil in big containers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would recommend trying to buy it in one of those big containers because it makes clean-up easier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you have four or five containers of oil (as opposed to one large container), then you have to keep refilling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This creates more and more chance to get the oil on the outside of the containers and increase clean-up time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you have one big container, then you can just tip the pot and pour until it is all out.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
Unless you have large "chunks" of residue, I wouldn't bother much with filtering the oil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All the big stuff sinks to the bottom anyway, so when you get to the end you can decide if you want to keep what's at the bottom (i.e., the seasoning) or pour it off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I usually pour everything back into my container.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It makes for better-seasoned oil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
For cleaning the pot, get some Dawn and a good brillo pad or other steel wool.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would do this outside…you won't score points with your better half if you do it inside.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
If you have hot water outside, that’s awesome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If not, rinse the pot with some cold water to get the big residue out, and do a quick scrub.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is to get the big stuff.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pour out the cold water, and then fill the pot with water again and put it on your burner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Use the burner to heat the water nice and warm/hot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, I use the pot as a basin to clean my lowering tools, thermometer, scooper, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, I scrub the interior and exterior of the pot and lid really good with the water in it, scrubbing hard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then I pour off that hot water, and probably repeat a last time with cold water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
I’m not going to lie: the clean-up is a pain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It usually takes me about 30 minutes to an hour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You don't have to use hot water, but it seems to clean better and it takes longer just using cold water (i.e., you usually have to repeat it a couple more times).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
(Because the clean-up takes a bit, I take advantage of every time I use my turkey fryer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will fry a turkey, a chicken, some hushpuppies, and maybe some other food to freeze).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
I store my oil inside until the next use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I've kept it outside before in a storage room, and it got very cold.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I never had a spoilage issue from storage temperature, but it is probably a better practice to store it inside.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">I hope this is helpful. It has always worked for me. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6957818653348839894.post-62255690348418672762012-11-20T08:40:00.000-05:002012-11-20T08:44:58.191-05:00It's Turkey Frying Season<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xPSgo-Bw5RA" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm an avid turkey fryer. I don't know who first came up with the idea of taking one of the leanest, healthiest meats and dunking it in a vat of hot peanut oil, but I salute you sir. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I also always enjoy seeing this Allstate commercial around Thanksgiving. I like the matter-of-fact way that Dennis Haysbert (a/k/a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Palmer_(24_character)">President Dennis Palmer</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gndH9mhHPk0">Pedro Cerrano</a>) talks about how plenty of people will burn their houses down when they try to fry a turkey. My suspicion is that this most often occurs when someone uses too much oil, and it overflows when they lower the turkey into the pot (not that I have any experience with that...). If you want to see a great illustration of the danger (and in the interest of providing equal time to State Farm), check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETBD0EqQGoU">this video</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Does this risk make a turkey fryer a defective and unreasonably dangerous as a product? Of course not. However, you do need to be careful. <a href="http://www.wmbfnews.com/">WMFB news</a> ran a nice story last week about turkey fryer fires (and other deep fryer claims). Unfortunately, South Carolina ranks tenth in the country when in comes to deep fryer fires. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So...when you fire up that oil this season, do be careful. You can find a <a href="http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/20095782/sc-ranks-in-top-10-for-thanksgiving-cooking-fires">link to the article here</a>, and the actual article is cut and pasted below. (A few years back, I did a summary for a friend of how I fry a turkey. If I can dig it up, I'll try to post it tomorrow).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">SC ranks in top 10 for Thanksgiving cooking fires</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>Posted: Nov 14, 2012 12:07 PM EST <noscript orgfontsize="11px"></noscript><!--END wnDate-->Updated: Nov 15, 2012 4:30 AM EST </em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While turkey frying is very popular, it puts people at risk for fryer related fires and injuries.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SOUTH CAROLINA (WMBF) - Thanksgiving produces more cooking fires, according to insurance claims, than any other day of the year, and South Carolinians are starting many of them.</div>
<div class=" withRelated" orgfontsize="12px" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
According to State Farm claims data, grease and cooking-related claims more than double on Thanksgiving Day compared to an average day in November. South Carolina ranked in the top 10 states for cooking fires according to claims made over the past five years.</div>
<div class=" withRelated" orgfontsize="12px" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class=" withRelated" orgfontsize="12px" style="text-align: justify;">
While turkey frying is very popular, it puts people at risk for fryer related fires and injuries. In fact, fire departments across the U.S. respond to more than 1,000 fires each year where a deep fryer is involved.</div>
<div class=" withRelated" orgfontsize="12px" style="text-align: justify;">
The National Fire Protection Association reports that deep fryer fires cause more than $15 million in property damage each year, not to mention the burn dangers related to splattered grease.</div>
<div class=" withRelated" orgfontsize="12px" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class=" withRelated" orgfontsize="12px" style="text-align: justify;">
According to State Farm, the top 10 states for grease and cooking-related claims on Thanksgiving Day for the past five years (2007-2011) are:</div>
<div class=" withRelated" style="text-align: justify;">
<ol orgfontsize="12px">
<li orgfontsize="12px">Texas </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">Illinois </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">New York </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">Ohio </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">Florida </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">California </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">Louisiana </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">Pennsylvania </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">Minnesota </li>
<li orgfontsize="12px">South Carolina </li>
</ol>
</div>
<div orgfontsize="12px" style="text-align: justify;">
<em orgfontsize="12px">Copyright 2012 </em><a href="http://wmbfnews.com/" orgfontsize="12px" target="_self"><em orgfontsize="12px">WMBF News</em></a><em orgfontsize="12px">. All rights reserved.</em></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0