Transportation Industry News Summer
2017 Deregulation and Freight Charges 3 A New Trend: Recent Court Decision Shows 4 Expansion of Preemption under FAAAA Court Allows Motor Carrier to Seek Implied 5 Indemnification from Shipper Team Directory 7
South Carolina Supreme Court: Tort Reform—It Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Does Bennett Crites | bennett.crites@smithmoorelaw.com Attorneys in South Carolina have appellate guidance on an unresolved issue for the first time since the South Carolina Legislature enacted the last round of tort reform in 2005. Both plaintiff and defense lawyers argued their interpretation was correct when it came to apportionment of fault for a non-party or for a settling defendant. The position advanced by plaintiffs was that a settling defendant no longer in the case could not be placed on the verdict form for apportionment of the fault. Plaintiffs would point to the plain language of the statute, which stated that the sum of the fault of the “defendants” and any for the plaintiff must equal 100%. Conversely, defendants would take the position that because the statute allowed the defendant to argue the “empty chair” defense, and because pure joint and several liability was abolished and available only if a defendant was found to be greater than 50% at fault,
that it was necessary for a jury to apportion fault to a non-party tortfeasors. In the case of Smith v. Tiffany, Smith was injured when he was struck by Mizzell’s vehicle as Mizzell was exiting a gas station on a rural highway. Mizzell argued that a commercial vehicle parked on the shoulder of the highway obscured his view as he exited the gas station and caused him to strike Smith’s vehicle. A partial settlement between Smith and Mizzell was reached when Mizzell’s carrier tendered limits in exchange for a covenant not to execute judgment. Thereafter, Smith filed a lawsuit against the trucking company and its driver (“Defendants”). Defendants answered and filed a third-party complaint against the
Continued on Page 2