Legal Opinion

Peay v. U.S. Silica Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided September 20, 1993No. 23933PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harwell, Chief Justice:

Pursuant to Rule 228, SCACR, the following question has been certified to this Court by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina:

When a statutory employee has drawn benefits under the Workers’ Compensation System, can an “owner” as defined by S.C. Code Ann. section 42-1-400, who has intentionally exposed that statutory employee to a hazardous substance that was substantially certain to cause the employee harm, claim the protection of the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation System, or would the holding of Woodson v. Rowland,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Woodson v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Dickert v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  3. Cokeley v. Robert Lee, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1941
  4. Horn v. Davis Electrical Constructors, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  5. Mauldin v. Dyna-Color/Jack RabbitSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Wigfall v. Tideland Utilities, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
  2. Lester v. South Carolina Workers' Compensation CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
  3. Robles v. Hovensa, L.L.C.Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2008
  4. Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. CMS Continental Natural Gas, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
  5. James v. ANNE'S INC.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2010

27 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