When Accidents Happen, All Parties Deserve Transparency, Accountability and Fair-Share Responsibility for
all claims and dispute resolution
Legislature must review, modernize, and reform South Carolina’s LEGAL system
to ensure fair and consistent public policy for commuters and commercial vehicle operations.
Stop insurance fraud and predatory lawsuits!
Pass the SC Justice Act
Learn more about suggested changes to improve our state’s lawsuit system below:
- Incompatible terms prohibit jury allocation of fault among multiple at-fault parties. This allows contingency-fee lawyers to choose who they sue, and shift a disproportionate share of liability for claims or verdicts against the party with the “deepest pockets” (most insurance) regardless of their degree of fault.
- Justice requires providing at-fault transparency and allowing the jury to see and assign contribution and responsibility to all parties involved (joint tortfeasors) in motor vehicle accident cases.
- Fault, not “who’s got insurance,” should be the guiding rule. That’s what South Carolina’s sister states have adopted.
- Most states end claims (hiring, training, supervision, entrustment and retention) against employers once they have accepted responsibility for their fault or that of their driver.
- It should be required that only true “evidence” related to accidents and claims be permissible only if evidence exists to justify an award for punitive damages. This ensures that the jury is not unnecessarily prejudiced by irrelevant “evidence” and the employer is not simply faulted for the actions of the employee.
- Clearly state in law that a violation of traffic statutes and safety regulations or convictions of moving violations does not constitute per se willful, wanton, or reckless conduct (current punitive damages triggers) but can be used to try to prove such conduct only during the proper phase of a trial.
- Current driving laws have deteriorated through abuse and manipulation such that today courts apply “careless” and “reckless” as synonymous and juries can’t distinguish this conduct.
- A “reckless” charge triggers the threat that a driver or company will have to fight being punished with punitive damages when they’ve merely made a mistake.
- Every-day-professional-drivers face unending challenges as they pilot their big rigs through modern highway environments with traffic and other drivers they can’t control.
- Our sister states don’t punish their citizens this way.
- This jeopardy causes insurance premiums to be higher, and costs related to all this to be passed on to consumers.
- Punitive damages should only be awarded if the conduct is “intentional” and “malicious” with specific intent to harm.
- Further, if clearly warranted, punitive damages should be paid to the state, not to lawyers, so as to remove perverse incentives to pursue them to provide enrichment and windfall contingency fees.
- South Carolina should prevent claims for medical expenses from including amounts that the claimant has not and will not pay for such medical care or treatment. Only actual expenses paid should be included in claims.
- The gross amounts (top-line invoice sums) of a claimant’s medical bills should be inadmissible as evidence of “damages.”
- These fraudulent charges contribute to excessive claims, inflating insurance costs and premiums, and are passed on to consumers.
- Prohibit lawyers from gaming the system by seeking a “default judgment” against a party unless the liability insurer and employer is served with proper notice.
- Generally, an insured individual is required to provide his or her insurer with prompt notice of any claim or lawsuit. Once the insurer receives notice, it triggers the insurer’s duty to investigate and/or defend its insured. However, South Carolina laws can force insurance companies to pay default judgments against them – even if they have no knowledge of the suit. This also applies to employers if the employee (usually former) does not turn over the suit papers promptly. Then, an order can be issued against the employer and are expected to pay.
- This is a sneaky tactic lawyers exploit, raising costs to all – easy money for them.
- South Carolina law insulates people from financial consequences of failing to wear a seat belt. All conduct is relevant, especially when one does not take the common-sense precautions to protect oneself or others by not wearing a seat belt.
- The jury should be able to know this, whether they apply it or not. “Let the jury decide.”
- No other motor vehicle code violation is exempt from admissibility as evidence.
- The trial judge should be able to determine what and how evidence should be used in a civil trial on a case-by-case basis.
- This “gag order” is likely in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and therefore unconstitutional.
- If a vehicle owner does not equip his vehicle with safety technology that is not required by federal or state laws or regulations, they should not be held liable for a claim of “failure to equip…” or any other type of claim for failing to adhere to a “standard.”
- Lawyers abuse this all the time. Like the old adage says: “one size doesn’t fit all.”
- In trucking regulations, South Carolina’s federal/“US DOT Reportable” accident reports (accidents with certain factors) are uploaded to a federal database and form a carrier’s and driver’s profile. This system is under critical review because there are too many variables between states’ systems and structures creating confusion and inconsistency. So, a motor carrier’s so-called “accident preventability determination” (score) and remedial actions taken should not be admissible presently.
- At some point in the future, when the system is trusted to be fair and accurate, this could be amended to allow such “determinations” to be used.
- This could be compared to ranking and penalizing parent’s handling of every aspect of their children’s driving and passenger conduct.
- Telematics – the latest in video technology and connected vehicles – allow many incidents to be prevented through consistent – and proactive – vehicle maintenance and continuous driver monitoring, coaching and evidence-based accountability.
- It also must be allowed to be used in defense of a frivolous or fraudulent claim.
- Judges must be confident in dismissing a case when this technology clearly shows a defendant was not at fault.
- The federal court standard for dash camera video evidence states that summary judgment (dismissal) is available if video evidence so blatantly contradicts the Plaintiff’s version of the facts that no reasonable jury could believe it. The federal standard is used in a majority of states. Florida’s Supreme Court adopted this.
- SC’s old-fashioned “system” prevents: “A picture is worth a thousand words.” This encourages and perpetuates fraud, abuse, and frivolous lawsuits by lawsuit marketers and ambulance chasers.
- A controversial and growing practice is financial firms funding big-payday litigation for attorneys seeking windfalls, and are mostly made in secret. This puts defendants at a disadvantage.
- This involves providing loans predominantly to plaintiff attorneys and, in some instances, directly encouraging and paying doctors up front for treatment of individuals injured in accidents..
- Outside financial backers can effectively take control of a case and drive up jury verdicts and settlements in accident litigation.
- Increasingly, plaintiffs are unwilling to take a reasonable settlement offer because the funding arrangement doesn’t allow them to meet their obligations to their financing company.
- The only way to know whether a particular litigation funding arrangement is violating core legal and ethical precepts or an impeding settlement is to make the practice more transparent.
- Federal courts in some states already require that opposing parties in a lawsuit be informed of such outside funding agreements. Not only would that allow defense attorneys to know what they’re up against, it also could likely permit them to question the outside funders during the legal discovery process.
- This Wall Street Moneyball can be insidious and egregious.
- Trucking industry safety technologies and practices are ever-changing/evolving.
- Motor carriers that have independent contractors’ and utilize safety technologies and/or practices will decrease the number of accidents, benefitting the public.
- For mixed fleets, common usage benefits all equally.
- AAA Foundation agrees monitoring and coaching maximizes safety benefits and found that video-based onboard safety monitoring prevents crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
- Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that using video systems with feedback and coaching reduced their safety-related events/miles traveled by 37% and 52%, respectively.
- Monitoring and coaching are often deemed employee-like control, so this protects the independent contractor status.
- Legislation is needed to narrowly allow this sector’s safety improvements, but not change South Carolina’s entrepreneur-friendly employment classification.
- When at-fault party resources are available and can be fairly applied, compensating injured persons or their immediate families is a good public policy objective. Providing them reasonable and clearly accountable actual damages in recovery is, too.
- Enriching their lawyer with windfall contingency fees resulting from overzealous demands for payments is not.
- Inflating “damages” is occurring at an alarming pace, as are outlandish claims for “pain and suffering.” Lawsuit marketers and “Big Law” work together to push the limits of reason, costing every insurance policyholder and consumer. The only real “winners” are the lawyers and their network of accomplices.
- “Just” compensation for the loss of a “life” of a “lifetime of care, earnings, or enjoyment” is a compassionate goal with an obligation that all of us agree must be reasonable. Going beyond reasonable and socially-acceptable amounts simply provides unnecessary, irresponsible, and potentially harmful “jackpots” rife with its own negative impacts.
- Each circumstance warrants its own special consideration and guardrails. But at some point, “enough is enough.” Uncertainty, inconsistency and unpredictability destroys stability and trust.
- With that, lawyers’ contingency fees for non-economic and punitive judgments should be capped or prohibited to rein-in the perverse incentives to reach for the sky with their fee-driven demands.
- The South Carolina public policy in assigning these limits is a duty best left not to the whim of a jury, but to the state’s Department of Administration, and away from the influence and conflict of practitioners.
Make a Difference
Join us in advocating for tort reform and equity in the legal system. Together, we can drive meaningful change.