Case from Dec. 2012 to Feb. 2013

Statutory interpretation
An ambulance in route to a structure fire does not constitute engaging in “fire protection” pursuant to Section 15-78-60(6) of the S.C. Tort Claims Act.
Curiel v. Hampton Cnty. E.M.S., No. 5065 (S.C. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 46).

Cases from May 2012 and June 2012

Causation
When actions are foreseeable, they do not break the chain of causation required to recover on a product liability claim.
Keeter v. Alpine Towers Int’l, Inc., No. 4995 (S.C. Ct. App. June 27, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 22)

Punitive damages
For product liability claims, if there is evidence to support a jury finding that the manufacturer was reckless, punitive damages are appropriate.
Keeter v. Alpine Towers Int’l, Inc., No. 4995 (S.C. Ct. App. June 27, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 22)

S.C. Torts Claims Act
Under the S.C. Torts Claims Act, in a claim against the city, to recover for an injury on city property, there must be evidence that the city had constructive notice of the condition causing the injury.
Major v. Hartsville, No. 4979 (S.C. Ct. App. June 6, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 19)

Cases from March 2012 to May 2012

Damages
Where a plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages arising out of the same injury by joint tortfeasors, a non-settling defendant is entitled to setoff for the amount the settling defendant paid.
Smith v. Widener, No. 4959 (S.C. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 11)

Intervening negligence of a third party
Where there is evidence of a third party’s negligent behavior, a jury should be charged on the intervening negligence of a third party to allow the jury to properly evaluate proximate cause and resulting damages.
Fairchild v. SCDOT, No. 27112 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Apr. 11, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13)

Punitive damages
A claim for punitive damages should be submitted to the jury when there is evidence that creates a factual question as to whether there was reckless activity.
Fairchild v. SCDOT, No. 27112 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Apr. 11, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13)

Cases from Oct. 2011 to Jan. 2012

Premises liability 
The Court adopted the balancing approach to determining foreseeability in the context of whether a business owner has a duty to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties. The more foreseeable a crime, the more onerous is a business owner's burden of providing security. Under this test, the presence or absence of prior criminal incidents is a significant factor in determining the amount of security required of a business owner, but their absence does not foreclose the duty to provide some level of security if other factors support a heightened risk.
Bass v. GOPAL, Inc., No. 27054 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Oct. 10, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 35).

Assumption of risk 
A party assumes all the risks that are integral to a particular sport by playing that sport. The risk of someone violating a rule of the game is one of the risks taken when engaging in a sport. This holding is limited to recklessness committed within the scope of the game and does not include intentional conduct by a co-participant of a sport or conduct so reckless as to be outside the scope of the game.
Cole v. Boy Scouts of Am., No. 27072 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Dec. 5, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 43).

Cases from July 2011 to Oct. 2011

Landlord liability
In this case, there was evidence that the landlord had actual knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity as it had previously attacked a child, and the respondent failed to remedy the situation. The landlord may be strictly liable if he exercised control over the premises and assumed some duty to care for or keep the dog. A dog cannot be considered an "artificial condition" under an attractive nuisance theory.
Clea v. Odom, No. 27029 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Aug. 22, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 28).

Products liability
When the plaintiff in a product liability case bears the burden of proof as to any issue within a subject matter beyond the common knowledge and understanding of lay jurors, that plaintiff must present expert witness testimony in order to meet its burden. Thus, not presenting evidence resulted in a directed verdict for the defendant.
5 Star, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 4862 (S.C. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 27).

Punitive damages
The ratio of punitive damages awarded by the jury in this case to actual damages, 8.75 to 1, amounted to an excessive disparity between the punitive damages awarded and the harm actually suffered. Therefore, a reduction in the amount of punitive damages was required.
Hollis v. Stonington Dev., LLC, No. 4869 (S.C. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 28).