Legal Opinion

Richburg v. Baughman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 8, 1986No. 22635PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harwell, Justice:

Appellant contends that respondent should have been collaterally estopped from claiming punitive damages in this car accident case. We disagree.

The trailer that appellant was towing broke loose from his truck, crossed a four-lane road, and struck respondent’s car. Respondent’s daughter, who was the sole occupant of the car, sustained bodily injuries as a result of the accident. Respondent sustained property damage to his car.

Two separate actions were commenced against appellant. Respondent’s daughter sought actual and punitive damages for her injuries. Respondent sought…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Hansberry v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. First National Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1945
  4. Graham v. State Farm Fire & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
  5. Phillips v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1984

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Wade v. Berkeley CountyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998
  2. Doe v. Bishop of CharlestonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014
  3. Manning v. South Carolina Department Of Highway And Public TransportationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1990
  4. Richardson v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
  5. Glover v. NarickWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1991

25 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