Landry v. Hilton Head Plantation Prop. Owner’s Ass’n, 317 S.C. 200, 452 S.E.2d 619 (Ct.App.1994), is a published December 2004 opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals.  It was the first appeal I handled solo and my first published appeal.

I had been assistant counsel for Mrs. Landry and her husband at trial.  That trial involved a claim for injuries she suffered when tripping over an open drainage hole in a common area at the Hilton Head Plantation, where the Landrys were homeowners and dues-paying members.  At trial, the judge charged the jury that the Landrys were “licensees,” to whom the Plantation owed a limited duty of care.  We contended that, because the Landrys had purchased property from the Plantation and paid dues to the Plantation, they had conferred a financial benefit to the Plantation and were thus “invitees,” to whom the Plantation owed a much greater standard of care.  After the jury returned a verdict for the Plantation we appealed.

The Court of Appeals agreed that Mrs. Landry was an “invitee” and remanded the matter back to the Circuit Court for a new trial.  This case established that property owners in South Carolina who lived in planned residential communities were invitees when using common areas.  It further expanded the duties owed an invitee to include “a duty of due care to discover risks and to warn of or eliminate foreseeable unreasonable risks.”

Put Mr. Forman’s experience, knowledge, and dedication to your service for any of your South Carolina family law needs.

Recent Blog Posts

The Folly of Fighting Child Protective Services after a Merits Finding

Early in my career, when family court attorneys were still being court appointed to represent indigent parents in abuse and neglect proceedings, I

[ + ] Read More

Court of Appeals determines homosexual couples could not enter common law marriage prior to the Condon case

A July 1, 2020, Court of Appeals opinion in Swicegood v. Thomson determined that South Carolina code prohibited homosexual couples from forming the

[ + ] Read More

College related child care is not work-related child care for the purpose of setting child support

There are a number of South Carolina family court opinions that are of narrow relevance but of significant importance when relevant. Such cases

[ + ] Read More