Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court answered a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and held that a drug-testing laboratory may owe a duty of care to employees whose specimens it tests. The court concluded that the laboratory-employee relationship, the laboratory's control over the testing process, and public-policy considerations support a negligence claim for inaccurate drug testing and reporting despite the absence of contractual privity.
Holdings
- A drug-testing laboratory that contracts with an employer to conduct and evaluate employee drug tests owes a duty of care to employees subject to the testing to properly and accurately perform the testing and report the results.
Questions Presented
- Under South Carolina law, does a drug-testing laboratory that contracts with an employer owe a duty of care to employees subject to the testing, such that an employee may maintain a negligence action for failure to properly and accurately perform the test and report the results?
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (20)
- Drury Dev. Corp. v. Found. Ins. Co., 380 S.C. 97, 668 S.E.2d 798 (2008)(followed)
- Oblachinski v. Reynolds, 391 S.C. 557, 706 S.E.2d 844 (2011)(followed)
- Madison ex rel. Bryant v. Babcock Ctr., Inc., 371 S.C. 123, 638 S.E.2d 650 (2006)(followed)
- Steinke v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, 336 S.C. 373, 520 S.E.2d 142 (1999)(followed)
- Ellis v. Niles, 324 S.C. 223, 479 S.E.2d 47 (1996)(followed)
- Araujo v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 291 S.C. 54, 351 S.E.2d 908 (Ct. App. 1986)(followed)
- Prosser & Keaton, On the Law of Torts § 53 (5th ed. 1984)(followed)
- McCullough v. Goodrich & Pennington Mortg. Fund, Inc., 373 S.C. 43, 644 S.E.2d 43 (2007)(followed)
- Huggins v. Citibank, N.A., 355 S.C. 329, 585 S.E.2d 275 (2003)(followed)
- Barker v. Sauls, 289 S.C. 121, 345 S.E.2d 244 (1986)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 20.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…