Legal Opinion

Davis v. Doe

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 10, 1985No. 22340PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harwell, Justice:

The issue in this appeal is whether contact with an unattached portion of an unknown vehicle meets the physical contact requirement of S. C. Code Ann. § 56-9-850 (1976). The lower court held that it did not and therefore granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

Appellant passenger was riding in a car with her sister-in-law when a wheel bearing broke through the front windshield and hit her in the chest. The accident occurred just as her vehicle was passing an oncoming log truck. After an unsuccessful attempt to identify the truck or its driver,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Coker Ex Rel. Estate of Coker v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1968
  2. Wynn Ex Rel. Wynn v. DoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1971
  3. Spaulding v. State Farm Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1974
  4. Harling v. Board of Commissioners of Police Insurance & Annuity Fund of the State of South CarolinaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1944
  5. Sapp v. State Farm Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1979

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. HowserSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  2. State v. McKnightSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
  3. South Carolina Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. DickinsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
  4. Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. HowserDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1990
  5. Bradley v. DoeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API