Legal Opinion · Dissent

Barton v. Higgs

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided February 9, 2009No. 26594Published

1Dissent

Justice WALLER:

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the Court of Appeals correctly held that respondent Total Home “met all of the statutory requirements to transfer liability.” Barton v. Higgs, 372 S.C. 109, 117, 641 S.E.2d 39, 43 (Ct.App.2007). Accordingly, I would affirm in result.

S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-415 provides that when a subcontractor “has represented himself” to a general contractor as having workers’ compensation insurance at the time the subcontractor “was engaged to perform work,” the general contractor “must be relieved of any and all liability.” The statute further states that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Society of Professional Journalists v. SextonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1984
  2. Goodman v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  3. Banks v. Batesburg Hauling Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
  4. Barton v. HiggsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
  5. South Carolina Second Injury Fund v. American Yard ProductsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API