Discussion on a Tort Case in South Carolina

Discussionon a Tort Case in South Carolina

InstitutionAffiliation

Discussionon a Tort Case in South Carolina

Tort cases involve injuries that occur unintentionally. They caninvolve defamation, aviation and travel accidents, abuse in hospitalsor emotional distress. The laws are used to find some justice to thecasualties without involving court’s jurisdiction. There iscompensation of the injured by the wrongdoer. The paper will discussa recent Tort case in South Carolina.

Nicholsonv. SC Department of Social Services

The claimant was Carolyn Nicholson who is a supervisor in theDepartment of Social Services. While she was walking, the hall carpetcaught her leg, and she fell. Her neck, left shoulder, and the leftside was injured, and she was treated. She went to court to claim forher compensation, but the commissioner denied it. The commissionerargued that the accident was not connected her fall with theemployment (Ryan and Holloway, 2015).

The court did not find the cause of the fall but said it was due topersonal conditions of the claimant, thus not compensable. However,this could not be referred as an idiopathic fall. The commonidiopathic falls are a stroke, heart attack, and epilepsy. Theidiopathic falls can occur in any place and at any time. However,Nicholson fall was because of defective carpet.

The lower courtfocused on whether the defective hallway caused the injury. Theyargued that, even if the claimant was carrying heavy files, she hadtestified that they did not contribute to her falling (Ryan andHolloway, 2015). Rather, the friction between the floor and her legcaused the fall. They held that the claim was not compensable as thehazard that caused the accident was very common and not related towork.

The claimant argued that the lower court ruling was misplaced. Thecourt inquired whether there was a work-related hazard after they hadruled no compensation. Hence, she argues that even if the fall was anidiopathic fall but which occurred at work, the court should haveinvestigated how the workplace aggravated the injury. Such aninstance should be considered and covered under the act. The claimantwas not arguing that the carpet sustained serious injuries to herbody organ but rather she purported that she received non-idiopathicinjuries while performing her duties. Thus, she was liable forcompensation.

As a result, she wasjustice to make an appeal to the high court. The court disagreed withthe low court ruling and approved her appeal. They reversed the caseand carried on with their investigations.

Fairnessof the Verdict

The verdict was not fair. The employer could have presented evidenceshowing that there was no issue at the workplace, which would haveled to the falling. Hence, claiming that the fall was solelyidiopathic, was in defense of the organization. However, there shouldbe no dispute of compensating or not. The fact the worker was at theworkplace, she should be compensated. Even those suffering fromidiopathic conditions can have their health problems exacerbated bythe work place. Hence, the act should consider covering allcasualties regardless of whether they are idiopathic ornon-idiopathic. In addition, it is the obligation of the managementto create safe working conditions for their workers. They should makean awareness of a defective floor, to caution anyone using it. Sincethe management had not carried their responsibilities, they shouldhave been responsible for the injury.

In conclusion, tort cases are common in our daily life. The caseoccurs on road accidents, family battling, and animal bites. The lawsshould be reinforced as they protect the human rights. They help thecasualties to have some compensation that helps settle theirtreatment bills.

Reference

Ryan W. &ampHolloway (2015). Nicholson v. South Carolina Department of SocialServices. Gallivan White Boyd.http://www.gwblawfirm.com/nicholson-v-south-carolina- department-social-services/