breach standard in South Carolina

1996See Sommers v. McKinney, 287 N.J.Super. 1 , 670 A.2d 99, 105 (1996).

1996See Sommers v. McKinney, 287 N.J.Super. 1 , 670 A.2d 99, 105 (1996).

2014For example, in Harris Teeter, Inc. v. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, our supreme court concluded that a legal malpractice plaintiff's presentation of deposition testimony of two experts failed to present a scintilla of evidence of either a breach of the standard of care or proximate cause. 390 S.C. at 289 , 701 S.E.2d at 749 .

2014For example, in Harris Teeter, Inc. v. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, our supreme court concluded that a legal malpractice plaintiff's presentation of deposition testimony of two experts failed to present a scintilla of evidence of either a breach of the standard of care or proximate cause. 390 S.C. at 289 , 701 S.E.2d at 749 .

2005Botehlo , 282 S.C. at 583 , 320 S.E.2d at 62-63 (noting that on a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, there will be no issue of material fact unless the plaintiff presented expert testimony of the standard of care and the breach of the standard by the defendant).

2005Botehlo , 282 S.C. at 583 , 320 S.E.2d at 62-63 (noting that on a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, there will be no issue of material fact unless the plaintiff presented expert testimony of the standard of care and the breach of the standard by the defendant).

2024Passenger Corp., 365 S.C. 391, 397 , 618 S.E.2d 903, 906 (2005) ("[W]e hold that evidence of [the r]espondent's deviation from their internal maintenance policies is admissible to show the element of breach." (emphasis added)); Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 31 , 410 S.E.2d 21, 24 (Ct. App. 1991) ("In negligence cases, internal policies or self-imposed rules are often admissible as relevant on the issue of failure to exercise due care." (emphasis added)).

2024Passenger Corp., 365 S.C. 391, 397 , 618 S.E.2d 903, 906 (2005) ("[W]e hold that evidence of [the r]espondent's deviation from their internal maintenance policies is admissible to show the element of breach." (emphasis added)); Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 31 , 410 S.E.2d 21, 24 (Ct. App. 1991) ("In negligence cases, internal policies or self-imposed rules are often admissible as relevant on the issue of failure to exercise due care." (emphasis added)).

2024Passenger Corp., 365 S.C. 391, 397 , 618 S.E.2d 903, 906 (2005) ("[W]e hold that evidence of [the r]espondent's deviation from their internal maintenance policies is admissible to show the element of breach." (emphasis added)); Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 31 , 410 S.E.2d 21, 24 (Ct. App. 1991) ("In negligence cases, internal policies or self-imposed rules are often admissible as relevant on the issue of failure to exercise due care." (emphasis added)).

2024Passenger Corp., 365 S.C. 391, 397 , 618 S.E.2d 903, 906 (2005) ("[W]e hold that evidence of [the r]espondent's deviation from their internal maintenance policies is admissible to show the element of breach." (emphasis added)); Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 31 , 410 S.E.2d 21, 24 (Ct. App. 1991) ("In negligence cases, internal policies or self-imposed rules are often admissible as relevant on the issue of failure to exercise due care." (emphasis added)).

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW "A directed verdict should be granted where the evidence raises no issue for the jury as to the defendant's liability." Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 364 S.C. 158, 163 , 612 S.E.2d 695, 697 (2005).

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW "A directed verdict should be granted where the evidence raises no issue for the jury as to the defendant's liability." Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 364 S.C. 158, 163 , 612 S.E.2d 695, 697 (2005).

2014See Hollman v. Woolfson, 384 S.C. 571, 579 , 683 S.E.2d 495, 499 (2009) (noting a professional malpractice claim requires a showing of the standard of care, a breach of the standard of care, proximate cause, and damages); David v. McLeod Reg'l Med.

2014See Hollman v. Woolfson, 384 S.C. 571, 579 , 683 S.E.2d 495, 499 (2009) (noting a professional malpractice claim requires a showing of the standard of care, a breach of the standard of care, proximate cause, and damages); David v. McLeod Reg'l Med.

2014Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 247-48 , 626 S.E.2d 1, 3-4 (2006) (providing, for a genuine issue of material fact to exist in a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant's departure from generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the alleged injuries and damages).

2014Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 247-48 , 626 S.E.2d 1, 3-4 (2006) (providing, for a genuine issue of material fact to exist in a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant's departure from generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the alleged injuries and damages).

2004Stallings v. Ratliff, 292 S.C. 349, 353 , 356 S.E.2d 414, 417 (Ct.App.1987) (“The issue of breach of duty does not turn on a ritual incantation of certain magic words by an expert witness.

2004Stallings v. Ratliff, 292 S.C. 349, 353 , 356 S.E.2d 414, 417 (Ct.App.1987) (“The issue of breach of duty does not turn on a ritual incantation of certain magic words by an expert witness.

1998See O’Tuel v. Villani, 318 S.C. 24 , 455 S.E.2d 698 (Ct.App.1995) (finding there is nothing improper about one witness testifying to a breach of standard of care and the other as to proximate cause).

1998See O’Tuel v. Villani, 318 S.C. 24 , 455 S.E.2d 698 (Ct.App.1995) (finding there is nothing improper about one witness testifying to a breach of standard of care and the other as to proximate cause).

1995See Creed v. City of Columbia, — S.C. —, 426 S.E. (2d) 785 (1993) (a physician is not in *285 competent to testify merely because he is not a specialist in that particular medical field).