Significant Settlements

Auto Collision involving herniated discs in neck and subsequent disc replacement surgery.

$988,000.00 Settlement

 

18-Wheeler and Contractor Negligence at Interstate Work Site: Wrongful Death of Car Driver

$4,100,000.00 Settlement

Suit Filed in Hampton County Court of Common Pleas (Co-Counsel Involved)

18-Wheeler Rear End Collision with Car at Intersection: Low Back Injuries to Car Occupant.

$1,800,000.00 Settlement

Suit Filed in U.S. District Court, Charleston Division.

Medical Malpractice Birth Injury…Shoulder Dystocia.

$300,000.00 Settlement

Suit Filed in Orangeburg County Court of Common Pleas

Atv Collision with Sink Hole on Road Shoulder Caused by Negligent Road Shoulder Maintenance by Department of Transportation: Utility Contractor Negligent in Originally Damaging Storm Water Pipes Underneath Roadway… Brachial Plexus Avulsion with Right Upper Extremity Paralysis.

$500,000.00 Settlement

Suit Filed in Charleston County Court of Common Pleas

Significant Injuries from Tractor Trailer Collision with Automobile.

$1,050,000.00 Settlement

Suit Filed in U.S. District Court, Charleston Division

Brain Injury from Grocery Store’s Negligent Maintenance
of Trash Compactor

$2,875,000.00 Settlement

Settlement Suit Filed in U.S. District Court, Charleston Division.

Wrongful Death of Three Year Old Child.

$2,500,000.00 Settlement

Suit Filed in Charleston County

Notable Jury Trial Verdicts

Premise Liability/Defective Shelf Design and Construction Against Grocery Store, Laceration Tendon Injury to Lower Extremity.

$270,000.00 Verdict

Suit Filed and Tried in U.S. District Court, Charleston Division

Car-jacking of Limousine Driver/Client Injured.

$222,334.00 Verdict

Suit Filed and Tried in Charleston County Court of Common Pleas

Reckless Porsche Driver Crashes into Family on Way to Church.

$100,000.000 Verdict

Suit Filed and Tried in Charleston Court of Common Pleas

Published Appellate Decisions

James E. Carroll, Jr. v. Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc., SPM Management Company, Inc. et al,
444 S.C. 177, 918 SE2d. 532 (2025)

The South Carolina Supreme Court clarifies the application of the “economic loss rule,” in South Carolina,  while keeping existing South Carolina common law exceptions to the rule in place.

The economic loss rule binds a party to contractual remedies only, not allowing for a broad range of common law tort remedies not set forth in the contract (such as consequential damages and punitive damages), where there is a sale of a product to a party, and the only damage is to the product itself (example: a tractor is sold to a farmer and has a defect; the farmer gets his money back, but can’t sue for his loss of crops due to the tractor not working).

The Defendant/Respondents in this case sought to have the economic loss rule extended to service contracts in South Carolina, which the court declined to do in this case and others going forward.  Further, the Court reiterated the longstanding common law distinction of when contract remedies and tort remedies for damages are available to a party filing suit for breach of contract.   The Court noted that tort remedies can arise out of the activities of a party performing a contract for services, where the performer of the service contract engages in an “active malfeasance,” activities not contemplated by the service contract; and that active malfeasance causes damages, such as consequential economic losses.   In this case, the court noted there was evidence of an active malfeasance by the contract performer;  and held that should the Plaintiff prove at trial that the active malfeasance caused the Plaintiff damages, then the Plaintiff’s remedies are not limited to remedies set forth in the contract.   The court held that in the future,  contracts can be drafted with “tort exclusions,” if those exclusions do not violate public policy.   The case was remanded back to the trial court following over a decade of litigation.

The Carroll decision is considered a landmark South Carolina decision, since it clarified when parties will be limited to contractual remedies because of the economic loss rule, helping drafters of contracts and performers of those contracts draft their contracts and plan the scope of contract performance activities, accordingly; and further, it guides attorneys in contract litigation on the scope of proof necessary to exceed remedies set forth in contracts subject to the litigation.

Means V. Gates, 348 S.c. 161, 558 S.e.2d 921 (S.c. Ct. App. 2001)

The S.C. Court of Appeals reversed a Berkeley County Circuit Court jury verdict where the Court refused to allow a neuropsychologist to testify regarding our client’s episodic depression and anxiety.

James V. Annes, Inc., 386 S.c. 326, 688 S.e.2d 562 (2010), Rev’d On Reh’g, 390 S.c. 188, 701 S.e.2d 730 (2010)

South Carolina’s disabled workers were routinely forced to abandon rights and remedies afforded under the S.C. Workers’ Compensation Act by overt threats from the defense to not consent to life expectancy age proration (“LEAP”) language in workers’ compensation awards.

LEAP language in an award or settlement agreement in workers compensation is nothing more than a mathematical computation of a worker’s net proceeds after the payment of attorney’s fees and costs, divided by the number of weeks a worker is expected to live, per South Carolina’s actuarial table. The resulting life expectancy proration rate allows the Social Security Administration to prorate the federally mandated offset of federal benefits that occurs due to the lump sum state award, over the life expectancy of the worker; rather than having the worker suffer a sometimes 3 to 4 years offset of Social Security Disability benefits. It reconciles all state and federal disability schemes to achieve the underlying purpose of the Social Security Act, which was at its genesis, and still is, to assist disabled persons.

Unfortunately, insurance company lawyers, knowing that workers would go hungry with such an offset, began pushing workers compensation commissioners to require insurance carrier/employer consent to the language being placed in awards. Given the politics involved with workers compensation cases, a gauntlet of commissioners took the position that consent was required, which gave the carriers and employers a de facto veto power over our workers’ federal Social Security Disability benefits. After two Supreme Court hearings, we prevailed and protected all of South Carolina’s workers. McKnight Law Firm funded the entire appeal and did not charge the client for any appellate work, through two Supreme Court hearings.