Legal Opinion · Dissent

Miller v. City of Camden

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 23, 1997No. 24732Published

1Dissent

BURNETT, Justice:

I agree with the majority’s conclusion Kendall owed no duty of care to respondents based on its contract with the City. However, I conclude, by virtue of its status as a volunteer, Kendall owed a duty of care to respondents as a matter of law. Accordingly, I dissent.

FACTS

In 1979, the United States Army Corps of Engineers inspected the Kendall Lake Dam, found it to be unsafe, and *319issued a -written report placing the dam in the “high” hazard classification because of “the potential for property damage and/or loss of life in the event of dam failure.” The report noted there was…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Roundtree Villas Assoc., Inc. v. KINGS CORP.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1984
  2. Crowley Ex Rel. Estate of Crowley v. SpiveyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1985
  3. Carson v. AdgarSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  4. Ellis Ex Rel. Ellis v. Niles Ex Rel. Estate of NilesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
  5. Evans v. Rite Aid Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1996

2 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