Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lawing v. Univar, USA, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 2, 2015No. Appellate Case 2013-002464; 27594Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Kittredge

I concur in part and respectfully dissent in part. I join the majority in its construction of the term “user” for purposes of section 15-73-10 of the South Carolina Code (2005). I dissent with respect to the “sophisticated user” doctrine and would adopt what I believe to be the excellent analysis of the court of appeals concerning the doctrine and its application to this case.

I offer two additional comments. First, I do not agree with the majority “that prior to the court of appeals’ opinion in this case, neither this Court, nor the court of appeals, had explicitly adopted the [sophisticated…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995
  2. Raymond G. O'neal, and Lisa M. O'Neal v. Celanese Corporation, and Hoechst Celanese CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
  3. Lawing v. Trinity Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API