Modified Comparative Negligence in South Carolina: How Shared Fault Changes an Injury Recovery
South Carolina allows many injured plaintiffs to recover even when they share some fault, but recovery is barred when their fault is greater than the defendants' combined fault.
Insurance companies often argue that an injured person contributed to an accident. That allegation does not automatically defeat a South Carolina claim. It does, however, affect both the amount recoverable and the evidence that must be developed before settlement or trial.
Case Summary: Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co.
303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991)
Gladys Nelson's vehicle struck the rear of Concrete Supply's eighteen-wheel truck while the truck was waiting on an interstate entrance ramp to merge. A jury found for the defendants, and the Supreme Court affirmed because the record did not establish negligence by the truck driver. At the same time, the Court replaced South Carolina's old contributory-negligence rule with modified comparative negligence for causes of action arising on or after July 1, 1991.
What the Court Held and Why
Under the rule adopted in Nelson, a plaintiff may recover when the plaintiff's negligence is not greater than the defendant's negligence, with damages reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's fault. When several defendants are involved, the plaintiff's percentage is compared with their combined negligence. The new doctrine did not change Nelson's result because comparative fault cannot create defendant negligence where none was proved.
Analysis: What the Decision Means for South Carolina Claims
Nelson provides two separate lessons. Shared fault does not necessarily end a claim, but a plaintiff must first prove that at least one defendant breached a duty. Case preparation therefore must develop objective evidence of each defendant's conduct and address allocation among all responsible parties rather than focusing only on rebutting blame directed at the plaintiff.
How the Rule Applies in a Charleston Injury Case
If a jury values damages at $200,000 and assigns the plaintiff 20 percent of the fault, the recovery is reduced to $160,000. Fault allocation becomes especially important in multi-vehicle crashes, unsafe-property cases, and incidents where defendants claim the injured person ignored a warning.
Evidence That Can Decide the Claim
Scene photographs, surveillance video, vehicle data, phone records, witness accounts, and expert reconstruction can prevent an insurer from shifting blame through speculation. Statements made immediately after an incident may also be used in the allocation analysis, which is one reason to avoid guessing about speed, distance, or sequence.
Practical Takeaways
Shared fault is a factual and legal issue, not simply an adjuster's opinion. Every responsible party should be identified, and each allegation against the injured person should be tested against objective evidence before a reduction is accepted.
How Traywick Law Helps
Our office evaluates South Carolina injury claims by identifying the controlling law, preserving time-sensitive evidence, and presenting the full measure of our client's losses. Learn more about our Charleston personal injury practice, or visit the Court Legal Blog for additional legal analysis.
Talk to a Charleston Attorney
If you have questions about how this issue affects your situation in Charleston, Mount Pleasant, or anywhere in the Lowcountry, contact Traywick Law Offices for a free consultation. Call (843) 343-5092.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different — please consult an attorney about your specific situation.
Questions About Your Legal Rights?
David Traywick offers free consultations for personal injury and consumer law matters in Charleston, SC.