16 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Snow v. City of Columbiagreen2 sentences2025See Snow v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 544, 555 , 409 S.E.2d 797, 803 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding the plaintiff's burden of proof in a negligence action "cannot be met by relying on the theory that the thing speaks for itself or that the very fact of injury indicates a failure to exercise reasonable care"); id. ("No inference of negligence arises from the mere fact of injury."); Graham v. Town of Latta, 417 S.C. 164, 186 , 789 S.E.2d 71, 82 (Ct. App. 2016) ("South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."). 2025See Snow v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 544, 555 , 409 S.E.2d 797, 803 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding the plaintiff's burden of proof in a negligence action "cannot be met by relying on the theory that the thing speaks for itself or that the very fact of injury indicates a failure to exercise reasonable care"); id. ("No inference of negligence arises from the mere fact of injury."); Graham v. Town of Latta, 417 S.C. 164, 186 , 789 S.E.2d 71, 82 (Ct. App. 2016) ("South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."). | 2 | 3 |
Graham v. Town of Lattagreen2 sentences2026Jail, 337 S.C. 400, 405 , 523 S.E.2d 204, 206 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The absence of any one of these elements renders the cause of action insufficient."); Graham, 417 S.C. at 186 , 789 S.E.2d at 82 ("South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."); Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Mfg. 2026Jail, 337 S.C. 400, 405 , 523 S.E.2d 204, 206 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The absence of any one of these elements renders the cause of action insufficient."); Graham, 417 S.C. at 186 , 789 S.E.2d at 82 ("South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."); Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Mfg. | 2 | 2 |
King v. J. C. Penney Co.green2 sentences2014Penny Co., 238 S.C. 336, 339 , 120 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1961) ("[I]t is well settled that the burden rests upon the party to prove negligence."); Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 221 , 644 S.E.2d 740, 746 (Ct. App. 2007) aff'd, 383 S.C. 583 , 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009) (holding the trial court "must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty[,]" and "[i]f a duty does exist, the jury then determines whether a breach of the duty that resulted in damages occurred"); King, 238 S.C. at 339-40 , 120 S.E.2d at 230 (explaining that South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine 2014Penny Co., 238 S.C. 336, 339 , 120 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1961) ("[I]t is well settled that the burden rests upon the party to prove negligence."); Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 221 , 644 S.E.2d 740, 746 (Ct. App. 2007) aff'd, 383 S.C. 583 , 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009) (holding the trial court "must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty[,]" and "[i]f a duty does exist, the jury then determines whether a breach of the duty that resulted in damages occurred"); King, 238 S.C. at 339-40 , 120 S.E.2d at 230 (explaining that South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine | 2 | 2 |
Chaney v. Burgessgreen2 sentences2006Without requiring more than proof of an injury, the court would be going directly against our decisions which uniformly state that the so called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this State. Chaney , 246 S.C. at 266 , 143 S.E.2d at 523 ; see King v. J.C. 2006Without requiring more than proof of an injury, the court would be going directly against our decisions which uniformly state that the so called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this State. Chaney , 246 S.C. at 266 , 143 S.E.2d at 523 ; see King v. J.C. | 1 | 4 |
Washington v. Lexington County Jailgreen2 sentences2026Jail, 337 S.C. 400, 405 , 523 S.E.2d 204, 206 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The absence of any one of these elements renders the cause of action insufficient."); Graham, 417 S.C. at 186 , 789 S.E.2d at 82 ("South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."); Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Mfg. 2026Jail, 337 S.C. 400, 405 , 523 S.E.2d 204, 206 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The absence of any one of these elements renders the cause of action insufficient."); Graham, 417 S.C. at 186 , 789 S.E.2d at 82 ("South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."); Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Mfg. | 1 | 1 |
City of York v. Turner-Murphy Co., Inc.green2 sentences2026Co., 299 S.C. 335, 344 , 384 S.E.2d 730, 736 (1989) ("[A] builder who contracts to construct a dwelling impliedly warrants that the work undertaken will be performed in a careful, diligent, workmanlike manner."); City of York v. Turner-Murphy Co., 317 S.C. 194, 196 , 452 S.E.2d 615, 616-17 (Ct. App. 1994) ("In a professional negligence cause of action, the plaintiff must prove the professional failed to conform to generally recognized and accepted practices in the profession. 2026Co., 299 S.C. 335, 344 , 384 S.E.2d 730, 736 (1989) ("[A] builder who contracts to construct a dwelling impliedly warrants that the work undertaken will be performed in a careful, diligent, workmanlike manner."); City of York v. Turner-Murphy Co., 317 S.C. 194, 196 , 452 S.E.2d 615, 616-17 (Ct. App. 1994) ("In a professional negligence cause of action, the plaintiff must prove the professional failed to conform to generally recognized and accepted practices in the profession. | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2026Co., 299 S.C. 335, 344 , 384 S.E.2d 730, 736 (1989) ("[A] builder who contracts to construct a dwelling impliedly warrants that the work undertaken will be performed in a careful, diligent, workmanlike manner."); City of York v. Turner-Murphy Co., 317 S.C. 194, 196 , 452 S.E.2d 615, 616-17 (Ct. App. 1994) ("In a professional negligence cause of action, the plaintiff must prove the professional failed to conform to generally recognized and accepted practices in the profession. 2026Co., 299 S.C. 335, 344 , 384 S.E.2d 730, 736 (1989) ("[A] builder who contracts to construct a dwelling impliedly warrants that the work undertaken will be performed in a careful, diligent, workmanlike manner."); City of York v. Turner-Murphy Co., 317 S.C. 194, 196 , 452 S.E.2d 615, 616-17 (Ct. App. 1994) ("In a professional negligence cause of action, the plaintiff must prove the professional failed to conform to generally recognized and accepted practices in the profession. | 1 | 1 |
Fletcher v. Medical Universitygreen2 sentences2015Univ. of S.C., 390 S.C. 458, 463 , 702 S.E.2d 372, 374 (Ct. App. 2010) ("South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur." (citation omitted)). 2015Univ. of S.C., 390 S.C. 458, 463 , 702 S.E.2d 372, 374 (Ct. App. 2010) ("South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur." (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Weinberggreen2 sentences2014Penny Co., 238 S.C. 336, 339 , 120 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1961) ("[I]t is well settled that the burden rests upon the party to prove negligence."); Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 221 , 644 S.E.2d 740, 746 (Ct. App. 2007) aff'd, 383 S.C. 583 , 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009) (holding the trial court "must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty[,]" and "[i]f a duty does exist, the jury then determines whether a breach of the duty that resulted in damages occurred"); King, 238 S.C. at 339-40 , 120 S.E.2d at 230 (explaining that South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine 2014Penny Co., 238 S.C. 336, 339 , 120 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1961) ("[I]t is well settled that the burden rests upon the party to prove negligence."); Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 221 , 644 S.E.2d 740, 746 (Ct. App. 2007) aff'd, 383 S.C. 583 , 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009) (holding the trial court "must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty[,]" and "[i]f a duty does exist, the jury then determines whether a breach of the duty that resulted in damages occurred"); King, 238 S.C. at 339-40 , 120 S.E.2d at 230 (explaining that South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine | 1 | 1 |
Burnett v. FAMILY KINGDOM, INC.green2 sentences2014Penny Co., 238 S.C. 336, 339 , 120 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1961) ("[I]t is well settled that the burden rests upon the party to prove negligence."); Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 221 , 644 S.E.2d 740, 746 (Ct. App. 2007) aff'd, 383 S.C. 583 , 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009) (holding the trial court "must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty[,]" and "[i]f a duty does exist, the jury then determines whether a breach of the duty that resulted in damages occurred"); King, 238 S.C. at 339-40 , 120 S.E.2d at 230 (explaining that South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine 2014Penny Co., 238 S.C. 336, 339 , 120 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1961) ("[I]t is well settled that the burden rests upon the party to prove negligence."); Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 221 , 644 S.E.2d 740, 746 (Ct. App. 2007) aff'd, 383 S.C. 583 , 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009) (holding the trial court "must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty[,]" and "[i]f a duty does exist, the jury then determines whether a breach of the duty that resulted in damages occurred"); King, 238 S.C. at 339-40 , 120 S.E.2d at 230 (explaining that South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. Weinberg
green
2 sentences2014Penny Co., 238 S.C. 336, 339 , 120 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1961) ("[I]t is well settled that the burden rests upon the party to prove negligence."); Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 221 , 644 S.E.2d 740, 746 (Ct. App. 2007) aff'd, 383 S.C. 583 , 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009) (holding the trial court "must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty[,]" and "[i]f a duty does exist, the jury then determines whether a breach of the duty that resulted in damages occurred"); King, 238 S.C. at 339-40 , 120 S.E.2d at 230 (explaining that South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine 2014Penny Co., 238 S.C. 336, 339 , 120 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1961) ("[I]t is well settled that the burden rests upon the party to prove negligence."); Moore v. Weinberg, 373 S.C. 209, 221 , 644 S.E.2d 740, 746 (Ct. App. 2007) aff'd, 383 S.C. 583 , 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009) (holding the trial court "must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty[,]" and "[i]f a duty does exist, the jury then determines whether a breach of the duty that resulted in damages occurred"); King, 238 S.C. at 339-40 , 120 S.E.2d at 230 (explaining that South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine | 1 | 2014–2014 |
McQuillen v. Dobbs
green
2 sentences1996Inevitably, the rule of civil circumstantial evidence is compared to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and in McQuillen v. Dobbs, 262 S.C. 386 , 204 S.E. (2d) 732 (1974), an exercise in academia is presented: The principles governing the determination of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish liability were thus stated in Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261 , 143 S.E. (2d) 521 (1965): “While our decisions uniformly state that the so called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this State, they have with equal uniformity recognized that negligence may be proved by circum 1996Inevitably, the rule of civil circumstantial evidence is compared to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and in McQuillen v. Dobbs, 262 S.C. 386 , 204 S.E. (2d) 732 (1974), an exercise in academia is presented: The principles governing the determination of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish liability were thus stated in Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261 , 143 S.E. (2d) 521 (1965): “While our decisions uniformly state that the so called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this State, they have with equal uniformity recognized that negligence may be proved by circum | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gilliland v. Pierce Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1966Gilliland v. Pierce Motor Co., 235 S. C. 268, 111 S. E. (2d) 521 ; Bruno v. Pendleton Realty Co., Inc., 240 S. C. 46, 124 S. E. (2d) 580 , 95 A. L. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Bruno v. Pendleton Realty Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1966Gilliland v. Pierce Motor Co., 235 S. C. 268, 111 S. E. (2d) 521 ; Bruno v. Pendleton Realty Co., Inc., 240 S. C. 46, 124 S. E. (2d) 580 , 95 A. L. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Perry v. Carolina Theatre
green
1 sentence1959Perry v. Carolina Theater, 180 S. C. 130, 185 S. E. 184 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Evans v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1956Another Iowa case was cited, Evans v. Roberts, 172 Iowa 653, 154 N. W. 923 , 926, in which a surgeon, while removing adenoids from a child, negligently cut off a-portion of her tongue. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Eickhoff v. Beard-Laney, Inc.
green
2 sentences1954Eickoff v. Beard-Laney, Inc. , 199 S.C. 500 , 20 S.E. (2d) 153 , 141 A.L.R. 1010 . 1954Eickoff v. Beard-Laney, Inc. , 199 S.C. 500 , 20 S.E. (2d) 153 , 141 A.L.R. 1010 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Delk v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
green
1 sentence1940Delk v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 180 S. C., 436, 186 S. E., 383 , was a case involving a tack in a plug of chewing tobacco not within the Pure Food Act but- held by this Court to be within the general class of food and drink cases insofar as negligence of the manufacturer raises a liability to the ultimate consumer who is injured thereby; verdict was directed for the defendant only on facts not present here, principally the time and opportunity resulting from the carrying of the tobacco in plaintiff’s pocket for the tack to have there gotten into the tobacco; it was said in effect that neg | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Pope v. Carolina Theater
neutral
1 sentence1936Woolworth Co., supra, and in the case of Pope v. Carolina Theater, supra; or it will have to hold that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does apply in South Carolina, when it has been repeatedly held that such doctrine does not exist in this State. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.