Lancaster Personal Injury attorney

/Tag:Lancaster Personal Injury attorney

Lancaster Man Shot While Attempting to Catch Loose Pit-Bull

On Monday night, a Lancaster, SC man was shot while he was chasing after his loose pit-bull at around 10:00 p.m.  The police found the man suffering from gunshot wounds in his left arm and chest. Police reported that the man saw several individuals behind a vacant house, and his dog became unchained [...]

November 14th, 2012|Personal Injury|

Outside of Rock Hill Train and Truck Collide Causing Serious Injury

In late August,emergency crews were rushed to the scene of an accident involving a dump truck and train colliding, right on the border of North and South Carolina and ending in serious injury. Officials have reported that the accident occurred around 11:00 a.m., right before the North Carolina state [...]

Head Injury Due to Car Crash- SC Car Accident Attorney

This past weekend was a dangerous one for drivers of secondary and rural roads, according to the SCDOT reports. Accordingly, five people were killed from car collisions while using South Carolina's rural and back roads for their travels. One individual who lost his life was a marine stationed in Geo [...]

SC Supreme Court Looks at FDA Preemption-Contact Lens Attorney

In the recent South Carolina Supreme Court decision,Weston v. Kim’s Dollar Store, the Court gave a textual read to the federal statute expressly preempting certain drug and medical device torts.  In that case, a young lady bought a pair of color contacts without a prescription from Kim’s Dollar Store and shortly thereafter lost sight in one eye.  Blindness from a color contact; can you imagine? The statute in question is as follows: “[N]o State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement— (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter. The Court basically ruled that the words stand for themselves, that any common law rule of tort that would be different from or would add to the federal drug laws is preempted, and not much further.  The application of this rule was sent down to the trial court. Read the whole opinion below the fold. South Carolina Contact Lens Attorneys If you or someone you know has been injured by a contact lens or any other medical device, you need legal help as you may be entitled to recovery against the product’s manufacturer.  Call the product liability attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 877-374-5999 for that legal help.  We have the experience to get you the best result in your situation. […]

September 17th, 2012|Products|

Procedural Failure of SC Personal Injury Attorney Almost Dooms Case

It’s an unfortunate fact of the law that sometimes those with legitimate personal injuries and a legitimate entitlement to recovery do not recover because of a procedural failing.  The recent South Carolina Supreme Court Case Mims v. Babcock Center represents one of the lucky cases, where the law recognizes substantive injury over formalistic procedure. In that case, an attorney filed a complaint in 2007 only to never serve process on any of the claimed defendants.  Defendants did in fact learn of the lawsuit, but the injured person’s attorney did not continue to pursue the claim. Later, in 2008, a second complaint was filed alleging to be an amendment to the earlier 2007 complaint.  Process was served for the second complaint on all defendants.  The problem is that SC Code § 15-3-20(B) requires that service be made within 120 days of filing a lawsuit.  The trial court dismissed the entire case, without prejudice (meaning the suit could be refiled), on the grounds that the plaintiff’s lawyer failed to serve process within 120 days of filing as required by the statute. The South Carolina Supreme Court, however, held that the full extent of SC Code § 15-3-20(B) is exerted by Rule 3(a) of the SC Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e. that: (1) an action is commenced upon filing the summons and complaint, if service is made within the statute of limitations, and (2) if filing but not service is accomplished within the statute of limitations, then service must be made within 120 days of filing. Read the whole opinion below the fold. Rock Hill Personal Injury Attorneys If you have been injured in any sort of accident, contact the personal injury attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 877-374-5999 or at this link.  We have the experience to get you your best recovery. […]

September 17th, 2012|Personal Injury|