|
Liability |
|
Joint and
Several |
|
Economic
Damages |
Limited* |
*Joint liability has been
abolished for defendants found to be less than 50%
at fault.
S.C. Code Ann.
§ 15-38-15(A) (as modified by H.B. 3008,
signed on Mar. 21, 2005, and as further modified
by S. 83, signed on Apr. 4,
2005). |
|
Non-Economic
Damages |
Limited* |
See
above. |
|
May a
Jury Allocate Fault Among All Persons Contributing
to an Injury? |
Uncertain.
|
S.C.
Code Ann. § 15-38-15(D) ("A defendant shall
retain the right to assert that another potential
tortfeasor, whether or not a party, contributed to
the alleged injury or damages and/or may be liable
for any or all of the damages alleged by any other
party."). |
|
Market
Share Liability |
Yes |
Limits
successor asbestos-related liability to the fair
market value or the total gross assets of the
transferor determined at the time of the merger
or consolidation. Provides
methods for determining fair market value.
S.C. Code Ann. § 15-81-160
(Successor
Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act
§§ 15-81-110). |
|
Defenses |
|
Comparative
Negligence |
Yes,
modified |
Plaintiff in negligence
action may recover damages if his or her
negligence is not greater than that of defendant,
and amount of plaintiff's recovery shall be
reduced in proportion to amount of his or her
negligence; if there is more than one
defendant, plaintiff's negligence shall be
compared to combined negligence of all
defendants.
Nelson v. Concrete
Supply Co., 399 S.E.2d 783 (S.C.
1991). |
|
Assumption
of Risk |
Yes |
Cole v.
South Carolina Elec. & Gas,
Inc., 584
S.E.2d 405 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003); see also
S.C. Code
Ann. § 15-73-20 (2004) (“If the user or consumer
discovers the defect and is aware of the danger,
and nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use
of the product and is injured by it, he is barred
from recovery.”). |
|
Product
Misuse |
Yes |
A defendant is liable only
for foreseeable misuses of the product. A
manufacturer must anticipate the environment that
is normal for the use of the product, and must
anticipate the reasonably foreseeable uses in that
environment.
Gardner v. Q.H.S.,
Inc. 448 F.2d 238 (4th Cir. 1971);
Mickle v. Blackmon, 166 S.E.2d 173 (S.C.
1969). |
|
Compliance With
Government
Standards |
No |
Compliance with a
government safety standard may be relevant on the
issue of negligence and may be admitted to show
due care, but is not conclusive as to
liability.
Stonehocker v. General
Motors Corp., 587 F.2d 151, 156 (4th Cir.
1978) (interpreting South Carolina
law). |
|
Statute
of Repose |
No, except for
improvements to real property |
8-year statute of repose
after substantial completion of improvements to real property.
S.C. Code Ann. §
15-3-640. |
|
Extended Statute of
Limitations in Asbestos Cases |
Yes |
The limitations period
for any asbestos or silica claim shall not begin
to run until the exposed person or claimant
discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable
diligence should have discovered, that the
exposed
person or claimant is physically impaired by an
asbestos or silica-related condition.S.C. Code Ann. §
44-135-110(a). |
|
Government
Contractor Defense |
Undecided |
The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, has
accepted the defense.
See, e.g., Dowd v.
Textron Corp., 792 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1233 (1988);
Tozler v. LTV Corp., 792 F.2d 403 (4th Cir.
1986), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1233
(1988). |
|
McLawsuits
Permitted? Can a food manufacturer,
distributor, seller, or retailer be sued based on
an individual's weight gain, obesity, or
obesity-related health
condition? |
No
restriction |
|
|
Compensatory Damages |
|
Is there a statutory limit
on economic damages? |
No |
|
|
Is there a statutory limit
on non-economic damages? |
No |
|
|
Is recovery for
medical monitoring permitted without physical
injury? |
Unlikely |
Rosmer v.
Pfizer, 2001 WL 34010613, at *5 (D.S.C. Mar.
30, 2001) (noting that South Carolina has not
recognized such a claim).
|
|
Punitive |
|
Is there a statutory
limit? |
No |
|
|
Is there any restriction
on imposing
multiple punitive damage awards for same
conduct? |
No |
|
|
Does the state receive a
portion of the punitive damage
award? |
No |
|
|
What standard is
used? |
Clear and convincing
evidence |
S.C. Code Ann.
§ 15-33-135. |
|
Procedures |
|
Venue |
|
|
|
Conducive to Abuse
- Does the statute permit forum
shopping? |
No |
For a resident individual
defendant, in the country where (1) defendant
resides at the time the cause of action arose; or
(2) most substantial part of the alleged act or
omission giving rise to the cause of action
occurred.
For a nonresident
individual defendant, in the county where the (1)
most substantial part of the alleged act or
omission giving rise to the cause of action
occurred; or (2) plaintiff resides at the time the
cause of action arose, or if the plaintiff is a
corporation, at its principal place of business at
the time the cause of action arose.
For a domestic
corporation, in the county where the:
(1) corporation has its principal place of
business at the time the cause of action arose; or
(2) most substantial part of the alleged act or
omission giving rise to the cause of action
occurred.
For a foreign corporation
required to possess and possessing a certificate
of authority, in the county where the: (1) most
substantial part of the alleged act or omission
giving rise to the cause of action occurred; or
(2) foreign corporation, has its principal place
of business at the time the cause of action
arose.
For a foreign corporation,
except a foreign corporation described above, in
the county where the: (1) most substantial part of
the alleged act or omission giving rise to the
cause of action occurred; (2) plaintiff resides at
the time the cause of action arose, or if the
plaintiff is a corporation, at its principal place
of business at the time the cause of action arose;
or (3) foreign corporation has its principal
place of business at the time the cause of action
arose.
Owning property and
transacting business in a county is insufficient
in and of itself to establish the principal place
of business for a corporation for venue
purposes.
H. 3008, Sess. 116 (S.C.
2005) (amending S.C. Code § 15-7-30). |
|
Class
Actions |
|
|
|
Is there a right to an
immediate appeal of class
certification? |
No |
An order denying class
certification is interlocutory and not immediately
appealable unless it contains other appealable
issues.
Eldridge v. City of
Greenwood, 417 S.E.2d 532, 534 (S.C. 1992);
Schein v. Lamar, 263 S.E.2d 383 (S.C.
1980). |
|
Appeal
Bonds |
|
|
|
Does the amount of the
required bond place undue pressure on the
defendant to settle rather than
appeal? |
Yes |
The appeal bond necessary
to stay execution of a judgment must be double the
appraised value of the property or double the
amount of the judgment.
There is an automatic stay
placed on appeals involving a signatory of the
Master Settlement Agreement.
S.C. Code Ann. §
18-9-130. |
|
Evidence |
|
Has the state adopted
Daubert, which requires the judge to
act as a "gatekeeper" against unreliable expert
testimony? |
No, but
similar |
Under State v.
Jones, 259 S.E.2d 120 (S.C. 1979), South
Carolina courts look at several factors,
including: (1) the publications and peer review of
the technique; (2) prior application of the method
to the type of evidence involved in the case; (3)
the quality control procedures used to ensure
reliability; and (4) the consistency of the method
with recognized scientific laws and
procedures.”
State v. Ford, 392
S.E.2d 781 (S.C. 1990); see also State v.
Council, 515 S.E.2d 508, 517 (S.C. 1998)
(court declined to adopt Daubert; analysis
for determining admissibility of scientific
evidence; under Rule 702, the trial judge must
find the evidence will assist the trier of fact,
the expert witness is qualified, and the
underlying science is
reliable). |
|
Private Lawsuits Under Consumer
Protection Statutes |
|
Must each individual
plaintiff show that he or she relied on the
allegedly unfair or deceptive practice at
issue? |
Uncertain |
There may be a
violation if the conduct "tends to
deceive." |
|
What is the level of
scienter (intent) required of a
defendant? |
None, for actual
damages |
S.C. Code
Ann.§ 39-5-140(a). |
|
Are class actions
permitted? |
No |
S.C. Code
Ann.§ 39-5-140(a). |
|
Are statutory damages (an
amount set by statute) provided for even if a
plaintiff cannot show an actual economic
injury? |
No |
Actual damages
only.
S.C. Code
Ann.§ 39-5-140(a). |
|
Does the plaintiff
automatically receive treble (triple) damages
regardless of the intent of the
defendant? |
No* |
*Treble damages are
mandatory if the violation was willful (knew or
should have known) or knowing.
S.C. Code
Ann.§ 39-5-140(a). |
|
Does every prevailing
plaintiff receive attorneys fees and
costs? |
Yes |
S.C. Code
Ann.§ 39-5-140(a). |
|
Is conduct authorized by
or in compliance with a state or federal statute
or regulation exempt from the
act? |
Yes |
“Nothing in this
article shall apply to: (a) Actions or
transactions permitted under laws administered by
any regulatory body or officer acting under
statutory authority of this State or the United
States or actions or transactions permitted by any
other South Carolina State law … (d) Any
challenged practices that are subject to, and
comply with, statutes administered by the Federal
Trade Commission and the rules, regulations and
decisions interpreting such
statutes.”
S.C. Code
Ann.§ 39-5-40.
South Carolina law
also provides:
“It is the intent of
the legislature that ... courts will be guided by
the interpretations given by the Federal Trade
Commission and the Federal Courts to § 5(a) (1) of
the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. §
45(a)(1)), as from time to time
amended.”
S.C. Code Ann.§
39-5-20(b). |
|
Jury Service |
|
Automatic exemptions and
disqualifications based on occupation eliminated? |
No |
South Carolina law
automatically disqualifies clerks of the court,
constables, sheriffs, probate judges, county
commissioners, magistrates or other county
officers, or any person employed in the courthouse
from service.
S.C. Code Ann. §
14-7-820. |
|
Are the grounds for
obtaining an excuse from service closely
defined? |
No |
South Carolina law
authorizes the presiding judge to excuse “anyone
from jury duty at any term of court if he
considers it advisable,” including when “the
person’s services are so essential to the
operations of the business, commercial, or
agricultural enterprise that the enterprise must
close or cease to function if the person is
required to perform jury duty.”
S.C. Code Ann. §
14-7-860.
Persons 65 years of age or
older are exempt from service.
S.C. Code Ann. §
14-7-840. |
|
May jurors automatically
postpone and reschedule
service? |
Generally,
no |
Students and school
employees may automatically postpone jury service.
Other summoned jurors who have a conflict must
show good cause to the court for an
excuse.
S.C. Code Ann. §
14-7-845. |
|
Is a juror's employment
and leave time adequately protected during
service? |
No |
South Carolina law
prohibits an employer from dismissing or demoting
an employee because he or she complies with a
juror summons. S.C. Code Ann.
§ 41-1-70. The law does not
explicitly prohibit other adverse actions not
rising to level or dismissing or demoting, or
prohibit explicitly employers from requiring
employees to use annual, vacation, or sick leave
time for time spent in jury
service. |
|
Is there a limit on the
frequency of jury service? |
Yes |
A person may be called to
serve no more than once every three
years.
S.C. Code Ann.
14-7-850. |
|
Is the length of service
limited to no more than one day or one
trial? |
No |
A summoned juror may
be required to serve a one-week
term.
S.C. Code Ann. §
14-7-200. |
|
Juror per
diem |
Varies by country from $2
to $12.50, plus mileage |
S.C. Code Ann.
§ 14-7-1370. |
|
Is additional compensation
available on lengthy trials? |
No |
|
|
Is the potential penalty
for nonappearance sufficient to encourage
participation? |
No |
Jurors who fail to
appear are subject to a civil fine of no more than
$100.
S.C. Code Ann.
§ 14-7-1390. |
|
Problem
Jurisdictions |
|
None
reported |
|
Hampton County was listed
as a Judicial Hellhole by the American Tort Reform
Association in 2004 and given a "dishonorable
mention" in 2003, but the county was removed from
the list after venue reform addressed the primary
problem in
2005. |