Adams v. Texfi Industries

464 S.E.2d 109, 320 S.C. 213 (1995)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
A
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Adams v. Texfi Industries

South Carolina Supreme Court
464 S.E.2d 109, 320 S.C. 213 (1995)

Facts

In September 1990, William Jackson Adams was killed in an airplane crash during his employment with Texfi Industries (defendant). William was survived by his wife, Rosita Adams, adopted daughter, Ji Hae Kim Adams, and stepdaughter, Martina McKeown (collectively, the Adams family) (plaintiffs). At the time of William’s death, Ji and Martina were minors. The Adams family sought death benefits for all three of Rosita, Ji, and Martina. The workers’-compensation hearing commissioner presumed Martina was wholly dependent on William and determined Rosita should receive 50 percent of death benefits, and Ji and Martina should each receive 25 percent. The South Carolina Appellate Panel amended the findings, leaving Rosita with 50 percent, Ji with 50 percent, and Martina with 0 percent, on the basis that Martina was not entitled to the statutory presumption and, therefore, was not wholly dependent. According to the statutory presumption, a child was presumed to be wholly dependent for the purposes of receiving death benefits of a deceased employee. The Adams family appealed, and the South Carolina Circuit Court affirmed the panel’s decision, finding substantial evidence that Martina was not wholly dependent or dependent on William. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Certiorari to the South Carolina Supreme Court was granted.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Toal, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 812,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Employment Law

Key Terms