comparative negligence doctrine in South Carolina

2023Dep't of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 88 , 502 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1998) ("To establish a cause of action in negligence, three essential elements must be proven: (1) duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty."); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422 , 529 S.E.2d 710, 712-13 (2000) ("[U]nder South Carolina's doctrine of comparative negligence, a plaintiff may only recover damages if his own negligence is not greater than that of the defendant."); id. at 422 , 529 S.E.2d at 713 ("Ordin

2023Dep't of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 88 , 502 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1998) ("To establish a cause of action in negligence, three essential elements must be proven: (1) duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty."); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422 , 529 S.E.2d 710, 712-13 (2000) ("[U]nder South Carolina's doctrine of comparative negligence, a plaintiff may only recover damages if his own negligence is not greater than that of the defendant."); id. at 422 , 529 S.E.2d at 713 ("Ordin

2004Thomasko v. Poole, 349 S.C. 7, 11 , 561 S.E.2d 597, 599 (2002); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422 , 529 S.E.2d 710, 712-13 (2000).

2004Thomasko v. Poole, 349 S.C. 7, 11 , 561 S.E.2d 597, 599 (2002); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422 , 529 S.E.2d 710, 712-13 (2000).

2006Comparative Negligence The Supreme Court of South Carolina adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243 , 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991): Having determined comparative negligence is the more equitable doctrine, we now join the vast majority of our sister jurisdictions and adopt it as the law of South Carolina to the extent set forth below.

2006Comparative Negligence The Supreme Court of South Carolina adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243 , 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991): Having determined comparative negligence is the more equitable doctrine, we now join the vast majority of our sister jurisdictions and adopt it as the law of South Carolina to the extent set forth below.

2011The court reasoned that the rule that the plaintiffs ordinary negligence could not be compared to a defendant’s reckless conduct served “a valid purpose under the very different contributory negligence scheme; however, the validity of this rationale is undercut by the offset inherent in the comparative negligence framework.” Id. at 684 , 561 S.E.2d at 367 .

2011The court reasoned that the rule that the plaintiffs ordinary negligence could not be compared to a defendant’s reckless conduct served “a valid purpose under the very different contributory negligence scheme; however, the validity of this rationale is undercut by the offset inherent in the comparative negligence framework.” Id. at 684 , 561 S.E.2d at 367 .

2023Dep't of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 88 , 502 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1998) ("To establish a cause of action in negligence, three essential elements must be proven: (1) duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty."); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422 , 529 S.E.2d 710, 712-13 (2000) ("[U]nder South Carolina's doctrine of comparative negligence, a plaintiff may only recover damages if his own negligence is not greater than that of the defendant."); id. at 422 , 529 S.E.2d at 713 ("Ordin

2023Dep't of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 88 , 502 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1998) ("To establish a cause of action in negligence, three essential elements must be proven: (1) duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty."); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422 , 529 S.E.2d 710, 712-13 (2000) ("[U]nder South Carolina's doctrine of comparative negligence, a plaintiff may only recover damages if his own negligence is not greater than that of the defendant."); id. at 422 , 529 S.E.2d at 713 ("Ordin

2006Id. “Only in rare or exceptional cases may the issue of proximate cause be decided as a matter of law.” Bailey v. Segars , 346 S.C. 359, 367 , 550 S.E.2d 910, 914 (Ct. App. 2001). “If there is a fair difference of opinion regarding whose act proximately caused the injury, then the question of proximate cause must be submitted to the jury.” Id. “Under South Carolina’s doctrine of comparative negligence, a plaintiff may only recover damages if his own negligence is not greater than that of the defendant.” Id. “Ordinarily, comparing the plaintiff’s negligence with the defendant’s is a question of

2006Id. “Only in rare or exceptional cases may the issue of proximate cause be decided as a matter of law.” Bailey v. Segars , 346 S.C. 359, 367 , 550 S.E.2d 910, 914 (Ct. App. 2001). “If there is a fair difference of opinion regarding whose act proximately caused the injury, then the question of proximate cause must be submitted to the jury.” Id. “Under South Carolina’s doctrine of comparative negligence, a plaintiff may only recover damages if his own negligence is not greater than that of the defendant.” Id. “Ordinarily, comparing the plaintiff’s negligence with the defendant’s is a question of

2006Ott, 320 S.C. at 80 , 463 S.E.2d at 106 ; see also Hopson v. Clary, 321 S.C. 312 , 468 S.E.2d 305 (Ct.App.1996) (stating plaintiff's claim was barred under comparative negligence doctrine because plaintiff's own negligence was, as a matter of law, greater than any negligence attributable to defendant and the more determinative factor in causing the accident).

2006Ott, 320 S.C. at 80 , 463 S.E.2d at 106 ; see also Hopson v. Clary, 321 S.C. 312 , 468 S.E.2d 305 (Ct.App.1996) (stating plaintiff's claim was barred under comparative negligence doctrine because plaintiff's own negligence was, as a matter of law, greater than any negligence attributable to defendant and the more determinative factor in causing the accident).

2000See Glenridge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Felton, 183 Ga.App. 858 , 360 S.E.2d 418, 421 (1987) (“[C]omparative negligence is available as an affirmative defense in Georgia ...”); Skaggs v. Elk Run Coal Co., 198 W.Va. 51 , 479 S.E.2d 561 , 586 n. 28 (1996) (“... the defendant must bear the burden of persuasion on the affirmative defense [ ] of ... comparative negligence.”); 57B Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 1274 (“The contributory negligence of the plaintiff which will proportionally mitigate the damages of the defendant under the comparative negligence rule is an affirmative defense.”).

2000See Glenridge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Felton, 183 Ga.App. 858 , 360 S.E.2d 418, 421 (1987) (“[C]omparative negligence is available as an affirmative defense in Georgia ...”); Skaggs v. Elk Run Coal Co., 198 W.Va. 51 , 479 S.E.2d 561 , 586 n. 28 (1996) (“... the defendant must bear the burden of persuasion on the affirmative defense [ ] of ... comparative negligence.”); 57B Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 1274 (“The contributory negligence of the plaintiff which will proportionally mitigate the damages of the defendant under the comparative negligence rule is an affirmative defense.”).

2000See Glenridge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Felton, 183 Ga.App. 858 , 360 S.E.2d 418, 421 (1987) (“[C]omparative negligence is available as an affirmative defense in Georgia ...”); Skaggs v. Elk Run Coal Co., 198 W.Va. 51 , 479 S.E.2d 561 , 586 n. 28 (1996) (“... the defendant must bear the burden of persuasion on the affirmative defense [ ] of ... comparative negligence.”); 57B Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 1274 (“The contributory negligence of the plaintiff which will proportionally mitigate the damages of the defendant under the comparative negligence rule is an affirmative defense.”).

2000See Glenridge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Felton, 183 Ga.App. 858 , 360 S.E.2d 418, 421 (1987) (“[C]omparative negligence is available as an affirmative defense in Georgia ...”); Skaggs v. Elk Run Coal Co., 198 W.Va. 51 , 479 S.E.2d 561 , 586 n. 28 (1996) (“... the defendant must bear the burden of persuasion on the affirmative defense [ ] of ... comparative negligence.”); 57B Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 1274 (“The contributory negligence of the plaintiff which will proportionally mitigate the damages of the defendant under the comparative negligence rule is an affirmative defense.”).

1997“To give continued life to that principle would defeat the very purpose of the comparative negligence rule — the apportionment of damages according to the degree of mutual fault.” Kaatz v. Alaska, 540 P.2d 1037, 1050 (Alaska 1975).