McCormick v. Campbell

4 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Haley ex Rel. Haley v. Brown

    370 S.C. 240 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding directed verdict proper where the “only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that [plaintiff's] negligence in running into the side of [defendant's] truck outweighed any possible negligence by [defendant] and was the more determinative factor in causing the collision.”

    Standard, 278 S.C. at 338-39, 295 S.E.2d at 787. In McCormick v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 272, 329 S.E.2d 752 (1985), the court again addressed the issue: In Standard v. Shine, 278 S.C. 337, 295 S.E.2d 786 (1982), we abrogated the arbitrary age presumptions in determining a minor's negligence or contributory negligence holding the behavior of minors under the age of fourteen should be judged by the conduct expected of a minor of like age under like circumstances.

  2. Brown v. Smalls

    325 S.C. 547 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Standard, 278 S.C. at 338-39, 295 S.E.2d at 787. In McCormick v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 272, 329 S.E.2d 752 (1985), the Court again addressed the issue: In Standard v. Shine, 278 S.C. 337, 295 S.E.2d 786 (1982), we abrogated the arbitrary age presumptions in determining a minor's negligence or contributory negligence holding the behavior of minors under the age of fourteen should be judged by the conduct expected of a minor of like age under like circumstances.

  3. Laun v. Greenville County

    329 S.E.2d 753 (S.C. 1985)

    Per Curiam: Remanded for proceedings in accordance with the majority opinion in Jamie McCall, by his Guardian ad Litem, JoanAndrews, v. Frankie Batson and the School District ofGreenville County, 329 S.E.2d 752 (S.C. 1985).

  4. Dalon v. Golden Lanes, Inc.

    320 S.C. 534 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 24 times
    Explaining when a minor is over the age of fourteen, his conduct is judged by an adult standard of care

    Since Dalon was over fourteen years of age, his conduct was to be judged by an adult standard of care as opposed to that of a minor. McCormick v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 272, 329 S.E.2d 752 (1985). Additionally, application of the sudden peril doctrine is ordinarily an issue for the jury to decide under the particular facts of each case.