Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Joe Patterson v. We Are Sharing Hop, S.C., et al.

Date: 01-12-2024

Case Number: 2:21-cv-01242

Judge: Bruce Howe Hendricks

Court: United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:





Click Here For The Best Charleston Personal Injury Lawyer Directory







Defendant's Attorney: Charleston, South Carolina insurance defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

Description:
Charleston, South Carolina personal injury slip and fall lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a premises liability negligence theory.



South Carolina premises liability law governs who is responsible for injuries that occur on someone else's property. Here's a breakdown of the key aspects:



Duty of care: Property owners and occupiers owe a duty of care to keep their premises reasonably safe for those who are legally allowed to be there. This duty varies depending on the visitor's classification:



Invitees: Business guests, customers, and others invited onto the property for the owner's benefit are owed the highest duty of care. This means the owner must actively inspect for hazards and take reasonable steps to fix them.

Licensees: Social guests and those on the property with the owner's permission but not for the owner's benefit are owed a lower duty of care. The owner must warn of known dangers and avoid creating new ones through reckless acts.

Trespassers: Generally, property owners owe no duty to trespassers, unless they are:

Aware of the trespasser's presence and do nothing to warn them about a hidden danger.

Intentionally or recklessly injure the trespasser.



Breach of duty: To succeed in a premises liability claim, you must prove the owner or occupier breached their duty of care. This could involve:



Failing to maintain the property in a safe condition (broken stairs, slippery floors, etc.)

Failing to warn of known dangers (hidden potholes, unmarked construction zones, etc.)

Creating a new hazard through their actions (leaving tools unattended, spilling liquids, etc.)



Proximate cause: The breach of duty must be the direct cause of your injury. In simpler terms, your injury wouldn't have happened but for the owner's negligence.



Damages: If you can prove both breach of duty and proximate cause, you may be entitled to compensation for your losses, including:



Medical expenses

Lost wages

Pain and suffering

Emotional distress

Loss of enjoyment of life

Property damage



Unique aspects of South Carolina law:



Open and obvious dangers: If a danger is open and obvious, the owner generally has no duty to warn visitors about it. This can make it difficult to recover damages in some cases.

Recreational immunity: Property owners are generally not liable for injuries sustained on their property during recreational activities like hunting, fishing, or hiking, unless they act recklessly or intentionally cause harm.

Statute of limitations: You generally have three years from the date of your injury to file a premises liability lawsuit in South Carolina.



Google Bard

Outcome:
Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Joe Patterson v. We Are Sharing Hop, S.C., et al.?

The outcome was: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Which court heard Joe Patterson v. We Are Sharing Hop, S.C., et al.?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston County), SC. The presiding judge was Bruce Howe Hendricks.

Who were the attorneys in Joe Patterson v. We Are Sharing Hop, S.C., et al.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Charleston Personal Injury Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Charleston, South Carolina insurance defense lawyer represented the Defendant..

When was Joe Patterson v. We Are Sharing Hop, S.C., et al. decided?

This case was decided on January 12, 2024.