O'Leary-Payne v. R.R. Hilton Head, II, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• providing that lay testimony generally is sufficient to establish proximate cause but expert testimony is required if the causal connection between the negligent act and the injuries complained of would not be apparent using common knowledge or experience
• \Expert testimony is not required to prove proximate cause if the common knowledge or experience of a layperson is extensive enough.\
• “[E]xpert testimony is not necessary to prove negligence or causation so long as lay persons possess the knowledge and skill to determine the matter at issue.”
• “[E]xpert testimony is not necessary to prove negligence or causation so long as lay persons possess the knowledge and skill to determine the matter at issue.”
• \[E]xpert testimony is not necessary to prove negligence or causation so long as lay persons possess the knowledge and skill to determine the matter at issue.\ (quoting F. Patrick Hubbard & Robert L. Felix, The Law of South Carolina Torts 167 (2d ed. 1997))
• \[E]xpert testimony is not necessary to prove negligence or causation so long as lay persons possess the knowledge and skill to determine the matter at issue.\ (quoting F. Patrick Hubbard & Robert L. Felix, The Law of South Carolina Torts 167 (2d ed. 1997)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).