Pike v. South Carolina Department of Transportation

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[i]t is not enough to say the defect was noted and a decision was made not to repair it”
• stating that the party pleading an affirmative defense has the burden of proving it
• holding burden of persuasion to establish discretionary immunity is on governmental agency, and the standard is inherently factual; SCDOT may not shield itself from liability as a matter of law by merely creating an issue of fact
• holding burden of persuasion to establish discretionary immunity is on governmental agency, and the standard is inherently factual; SCDOT may not shield itself from liability as a matter of law by merely creating an issue of fact
• acknowledging \the well-established rule that the party pleading an affirmative defense 'has the burden of proving it'\ (quoting Hoffman v. Greenville Cty., 242 S.C. 34, 39, 129 S.E.2d 757, 760 (1963))
• admission and rejection of testimony is largely within trial court's sound discretion, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse of that discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).