Hupman v. Erskine College

314 S.E.2d 314, 281 S.C. 43, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 249
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 20, 1984
Docket22059
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 314 S.E.2d 314 (Hupman v. Erskine College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hupman v. Erskine College, 314 S.E.2d 314, 281 S.C. 43, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 249 (S.C. 1984).

Opinions

Littlejohn, Justice:

This case comes before us as a certified question from the United States District Court, District of South Carolina, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 46.

The question presented is as follows:

Does the abrogation of the doctrine of charitable immunity announced in Fitzer v. Greater Greenville, S. C. Young Men’s Christian Association, 277 S. C. 1, 282 S. E. (2d) 230 (1981) apply retroactively?

This case arises from an injury to a student at Erskine College, who was severely burned in a shower on November 21, 1980.

Suit was filed March 14, 1982. One defendant, Erskine College, has raised the defense of charitable immunity. This defense was abolished in its entirety ten months after the plaintiffs injury. Fitzer, supra.

This Court has consistently ruled that the abrogation of immunities defenses is to be applied prospectively only. See e.g., Douglass v. Florence General Hospital, 273 S. C. 716, 259 S. E. (2d) 117 (1979) and Hyder v. Jones, 271 S. C. 85, 245 S. E. (2d) 123 (1978). See also, 15 Am. Jur. (2d) Charities § 194 (1976). Prospective application is required when liability is created where formerly none existed.

We hold that the abrogation of the doctrine of charitable immunity announced in Fitzer v. Greater Greenville, S. C., YMCA, 277 S. C. 1, 282 S. E. (2d) 230 (1981) applies prospectively only.

[45]*45The foregoing is the order of this Court.

Lewis, C. J., and Gregory, A. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

John Doe v. Bishop of Charleston
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2023
Miranda C. v. Nissan Motor Co.
741 S.E.2d 34 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2013)
Falk v. Sadler
533 S.E.2d 350 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2000)
Laughridge v. Parkinson
403 S.E.2d 120 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1991)
Grooms v. MED. SOCIETY OF SC
380 S.E.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1989)
Toth v. Square D Company
377 S.E.2d 584 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1989)
McCaskey v. Shaw
368 S.E.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1988)
Foster v. Greenville County Medical Society
367 S.E.2d 468 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1988)
Rabb v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
677 F. Supp. 424 (D. South Carolina, 1987)
Langley v. Boyter
325 S.E.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)
Hupman v. Erskine College
314 S.E.2d 314 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
314 S.E.2d 314, 281 S.C. 43, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hupman-v-erskine-college-sc-1984.