Charleston, SC
Personal injury Lawyer at Charleston, SC
Practice Areas: Personal Injury, Wrongful Death ... +6 more
OUTCOME: Trial Verdict $300,000
Our client was helping the manager of a community theater move a large desk when the tension strap on a furniture dolly came loose, knocking him down the stairs, resulting in a broken arm. Because the ... defendant was a charitable entity, the damages in the case were capped at $300,000, and we got an award of the full amount.
OUTCOME: Trial Verdict $63,000,000
Garvin v. Dominion Energy South Carolina arose from catastrophic injuries sustained by veteran lineman Joseph Garvin while performing electrical line work. Garvin alleged that Dominion Energy (formerly ... SCE&G) failed to provide adequate training and maintain safe work practices, resulting in severe electrical injuries that permanently changed his life. Dominion denied liability and argued that Garvin's own actions caused the accident. After trial in Orangeburg County, a jury found in Garvin's favor and returned a verdict of $90,000,000, reduced to $63 million due to comparative negligence. The case drew statewide attention as one of South Carolina's largest workplace injury verdicts and became a focal point in broader discussions over utility safety, employer responsibility, and large jury verdicts in the state.
OUTCOME: Settlement $88,000,000
The Emmanuel 9 case arose from the tragic mass shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on June 17, 2015, in which nine parishioners were murdered during Bible study. The vi ... ctims' families brought claims against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging that failures in the federal background check system allowed the shooter to unlawfully purchase the handgun used in the attack. The lawsuit centered on the FBI's administration of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Plaintiffs alleged that the shooter's prior drug arrest should have disqualified him from purchasing a firearm, but errors in the background check process prevented the disqualifying record from being discovered before the statutory three-day period expired. As a result, the firearm sale proceeded under the so-called "default proceed" rule. The litigation sought to hold the federal government accountable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence in processing the background check. The case was significant not only because of the profound human loss involved, but also because it tested the scope of the federal government's responsibility for administering the nation's firearm background check system. It highlighted the consequences of administrative failures in public safety systems and prompted renewed national discussion about the adequacy of background check procedures and the "Charleston loophole" that permits firearm transfers when a background check is not completed within three business days. The litigation ultimately resulted in a substantial settlement with the United States, resolving claims brought on behalf of the victims' families. Beyond the legal outcome, the case contributed to ongoing legislative and policy debates over strengthening the federal background check system and preventing similar tragedies in the future.