By: Brian A. Comer and Andrew DeHoll
I have not posted much on the breach of warranty theory for a products liability action, so I am hoping to do another "series" of sorts that covers various aspects of this theory. A summer associate with whom I worked last year, Andrew DeHoll, did a great deal of work on researching warranty law for me, so I want to give him recognition for all his help. Thanks very much Andrew!
If this turns into a series, it makes sense to start out with a general overview. South Carolina law allows people injured by defective products to recover damages under three contract theories: breach of an express warranty, breach of an implied warranty of merchantability; and breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. See Herring v. Home Depot, Inc., 350 S.C. 373, 379–80, 565 S.E.2d 773, 776 (Ct. App. 2002) ("Breach of warranty is an action affirming the contract."). These theories are codified at S.C. Code sections 36-2-313 (express warranty), 36-2-314 (implied warranty of merchantability), and 36-2-315 (implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose). Unlike other products liability theories (which have a statute of limitations of three years), a claim brought pursuant to a warranty theory has a statute of limitations of six years, as set forth in S.C. Code section 36-2-725.
(As discussed in prior blogs, any products liability theory in South Carolina requires proof of three foundational elements, and breach of warranty is no exception. A plaintiff must prove: (1) the plaintiff or his or her property was injured by the product; (2) the injury occurred because the product was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the user; and (3) at the time of the accident, the product was in essentially the same condition as when it left the hands of the defendant. For a full explanation of the case law behind these three elements, see this post.)
This post is subject to the DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE of this website.
Showing posts with label Statute of Limitations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statute of Limitations. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The "Basics"
By Brian A. Comer
It seems appropriate that a first entry about products liability law in South Carolina would include "the basics", i.e., the legal theories that can serve as a basis for a products liability claim.
A person can bring a products liability claim based on negligence, strict liability in tort, and/or breach of warranty. Small v. Pioneer Mach., Inc., 329 S.C. 448, 494 S.E.2d 835 (Ct. App.1997); Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc., 319 S.C. 531, 462 S.E.2d 321 (Ct. App.1995). "Strict liability and negligence are not mutually exclusive theories of recovery; that is, an injury may give rise to claims that can be established either under principles of strict liability or negligence, and failure to prove one theory does not preclude proving the other." Bragg, 319 S.C. at 539, 462 S.E.2d at 326.
Regardless of the theory that serves as a basis for recovery, a plaintiff must establish three elements in a South Carolina products liability claim: (1) the plaintiff was injured by the product; (2) the injury occurred because the product was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the user; and (3) the product, at the time of the accident, was in essentially the same condition as when it left the hands of the defendant. Rife v. Hitachi Const. Mach. Co., Ltd., 363 S.C. 209, 215, 609 S.E.2d 565, 568 (Ct. App. 2005); Bragg, 319 S.C. at 539, 462 S.E.2d at 326. In addition to the above, in a negligence action "the plaintiff bears the additional burden of demonstrating the defendant (seller or manufacturer) failed to exercise due care in some respect, and, unlike strict liability, the focus is on the conduct of the seller or manufacturer, and liability is determined according to fault." Bragg, 319 S.C. at 539, 462 S.E.2d at 326. As stated by another court, the plaintiff must also prove "that the manufacturer breached its duty to exercise reasonable care to adopt a safe design." Rife, 363 S.C at 215, 609 S.E.2d at 569.
There is no statute of limitations specific to products liability actions in South Carolina. Instead, the applicable statute of limitations is the same as any personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage statute. For these actions, the limitations is six years for causes of action that accrue prior to April 5, 1988, and three years for causes of action arising on or after April 5, 1988. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-3-530, 15-3-535, and 15-3-545. The statue of limitations for breach of warranty actions is six years. Id. at § 36-2-725. With the exception of actions brought as medical malpractice actions, all action "must be commenced within three years after the person knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that he had a cause of action." S.C. Code Ann. 15-3-535. In other words, the date of discovery is significant for determining when the statute of limitations begins to run.
These are "the basics," and my hope is to focus on each of them in greater detail in subsequent postings.
This post is subject to the DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE of this website.
It seems appropriate that a first entry about products liability law in South Carolina would include "the basics", i.e., the legal theories that can serve as a basis for a products liability claim.
A person can bring a products liability claim based on negligence, strict liability in tort, and/or breach of warranty. Small v. Pioneer Mach., Inc., 329 S.C. 448, 494 S.E.2d 835 (Ct. App.1997); Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc., 319 S.C. 531, 462 S.E.2d 321 (Ct. App.1995). "Strict liability and negligence are not mutually exclusive theories of recovery; that is, an injury may give rise to claims that can be established either under principles of strict liability or negligence, and failure to prove one theory does not preclude proving the other." Bragg, 319 S.C. at 539, 462 S.E.2d at 326.
Regardless of the theory that serves as a basis for recovery, a plaintiff must establish three elements in a South Carolina products liability claim: (1) the plaintiff was injured by the product; (2) the injury occurred because the product was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the user; and (3) the product, at the time of the accident, was in essentially the same condition as when it left the hands of the defendant. Rife v. Hitachi Const. Mach. Co., Ltd., 363 S.C. 209, 215, 609 S.E.2d 565, 568 (Ct. App. 2005); Bragg, 319 S.C. at 539, 462 S.E.2d at 326. In addition to the above, in a negligence action "the plaintiff bears the additional burden of demonstrating the defendant (seller or manufacturer) failed to exercise due care in some respect, and, unlike strict liability, the focus is on the conduct of the seller or manufacturer, and liability is determined according to fault." Bragg, 319 S.C. at 539, 462 S.E.2d at 326. As stated by another court, the plaintiff must also prove "that the manufacturer breached its duty to exercise reasonable care to adopt a safe design." Rife, 363 S.C at 215, 609 S.E.2d at 569.
There is no statute of limitations specific to products liability actions in South Carolina. Instead, the applicable statute of limitations is the same as any personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage statute. For these actions, the limitations is six years for causes of action that accrue prior to April 5, 1988, and three years for causes of action arising on or after April 5, 1988. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-3-530, 15-3-535, and 15-3-545. The statue of limitations for breach of warranty actions is six years. Id. at § 36-2-725. With the exception of actions brought as medical malpractice actions, all action "must be commenced within three years after the person knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that he had a cause of action." S.C. Code Ann. 15-3-535. In other words, the date of discovery is significant for determining when the statute of limitations begins to run.
These are "the basics," and my hope is to focus on each of them in greater detail in subsequent postings.
This post is subject to the DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE of this website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)