Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Faile v. Bycuragreen2 sentences2025See Faile, 289 S.C. at 399 , 346 S.E.2d at 529 ("In order for the doctrine of assumption of the risk to apply, the injured party must have freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger which he understood and appreciated." (emphasis added)) 5; Keeton et al., supra § 68, at 487 ("[The plaintiff] must not only know of the facts which create the danger, but he must comprehend and appreciate the nature of the danger he confronts."). 2025See Faile, 289 S.C. at 399 , 346 S.E.2d at 529 ("In order for the doctrine of assumption of the risk to apply, the injured party must have freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger which he understood and appreciated." (emphasis added)) 5; Keeton et al., supra § 68, at 487 ("[The plaintiff] must not only know of the facts which create the danger, but he must comprehend and appreciate the nature of the danger he confronts."). | 4 | 4 |
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regimegreen2 sentences2019Regime, 333 S.C. 71, 88 , 508 S.E.2d 565, 574 (1998))); id. at 404-05, 663 S.E.2d at 33 ("In order for the doctrine of assumption of the risk to apply in a particular case, the injured party must have freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger which he understood and appreciated." (citing Faile v. Bycura, 289 S.C. 398, 399 , 346 S.E.2d 528, 529 (1986))); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 207 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 208 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The doctrine is predicated on the factual situation of a defendant's acts alone creating the danger and causing the accident, with the plaintiff's act 2019Regime, 333 S.C. 71, 88 , 508 S.E.2d 565, 574 (1998))); id. at 404-05, 663 S.E.2d at 33 ("In order for the doctrine of assumption of the risk to apply in a particular case, the injured party must have freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger which he understood and appreciated." (citing Faile v. Bycura, 289 S.C. 398, 399 , 346 S.E.2d 528, 529 (1986))); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 207 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 208 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The doctrine is predicated on the factual situation of a defendant's acts alone creating the danger and causing the accident, with the plaintiff's act | 2 | 3 |
Cole v. Rautgreen2 sentences2025"In order for the doctrine of assumption of the risk to apply in a particular case, the injured party must have freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger which he understood and appreciated." Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398 , 404–05, 663 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008). 2025"In order for the doctrine of assumption of the risk to apply in a particular case, the injured party must have freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger which he understood and appreciated." Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398 , 404–05, 663 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008). | 2 | 2 |
Singleton v. Sherergreen2 sentences2019Regime, 333 S.C. 71, 88 , 508 S.E.2d 565, 574 (1998))); id. at 404-05, 663 S.E.2d at 33 ("In order for the doctrine of assumption of the risk to apply in a particular case, the injured party must have freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger which he understood and appreciated." (citing Faile v. Bycura, 289 S.C. 398, 399 , 346 S.E.2d 528, 529 (1986))); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 207 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 208 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The doctrine is predicated on the factual situation of a defendant's acts alone creating the danger and causing the accident, with the plaintiff's act 2019Regime, 333 S.C. 71, 88 , 508 S.E.2d 565, 574 (1998))); id. at 404-05, 663 S.E.2d at 33 ("In order for the doctrine of assumption of the risk to apply in a particular case, the injured party must have freely and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger which he understood and appreciated." (citing Faile v. Bycura, 289 S.C. 398, 399 , 346 S.E.2d 528, 529 (1986))); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 207 , 659 S.E.2d 196, 208 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The doctrine is predicated on the factual situation of a defendant's acts alone creating the danger and causing the accident, with the plaintiff's act | 1 | 1 |
Hoeffner Ex Rel. Estate of Hoeffner v. Citadelgreen2 sentences1996Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S.C. 169 , 367 S.E. (2d) 456 (Ct. App. 1988); see Hoeffner v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361 , 429 S.E. (2d) 190 (1993) (the defense of assumption of the risk applies where the plaintiff assumes a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s negligent or reckless conduct); Mayes v. Paxton, 313 S.C. 109 , 437 S.E. (2d) 66 (1993) (in the absence of express consent to assume the risk, the plaintiff consent can be implied where he understands and appreciates a known danger created by the defendant, and then freely and voluntarily exposes himself to it). 1996Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S.C. 169 , 367 S.E.2d 456 (Ct.App.1988); see Hoeffner v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361 , 429 S.E2d 190 (1993) (the defense of assumption of the risk applies where the plaintiff assumes a risk of harm arising from the defendant's negligent or reckless conduct); Mayes v. Paxton, 313 S.C. 109 , 437 S.E.2d 66 (1993) (in the absence of express consent to assume the risk, the plaintiff's consent can be implied where he understands and appreciates a known danger created by the defendant, and then freely and voluntarily exposes himself to it). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Further, in Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219 , 337 S.E.2d 213 (1985) and Kinard v. Augusta Sash & Door Co., 286 S.C. 579 , 336 S.E.2d 465 (1985), this Court did allow the plaintiffs to proceed on the new tort theory, but pointed out in each case that the change had been foreshadowed. 2007Further, in Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219 , 337 S.E.2d 213 (1985) and Kinard v. Augusta Sash & Door Co., 286 S.C. 579 , 336 S.E.2d 465 (1985), this Court did allow the plaintiffs to proceed on the new tort theory, but pointed out in each case that the change had been foreshadowed. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kinard v. Augusta Sash & Door Co.
green
2 sentences2007Further, in Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219 , 337 S.E.2d 213 (1985) and Kinard v. Augusta Sash & Door Co., 286 S.C. 579 , 336 S.E.2d 465 (1985), this Court did allow the plaintiffs to proceed on the new tort theory, but pointed out in each case that the change had been foreshadowed. 2007Further, in Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219 , 337 S.E.2d 213 (1985) and Kinard v. Augusta Sash & Door Co., 286 S.C. 579 , 336 S.E.2d 465 (1985), this Court did allow the plaintiffs to proceed on the new tort theory, but pointed out in each case that the change had been foreshadowed. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Langley v. Boyter
green
2 sentences1997NOTES [1] In Nelson , the supreme court referred the bench and bar to Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984), quashed on procedural grounds, 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985), for "an exhaustive analytical discussion of the history and merits of comparative negligence." 303 S.C. at 244 , 399 S.E.2d at 784 . [2] There are four comparative negligence systems: pure, slight-gross, and two modified approaches. 1997NOTES [1] In Nelson , the supreme court referred the bench and bar to Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984), quashed on procedural grounds, 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985), for "an exhaustive analytical discussion of the history and merits of comparative negligence." 303 S.C. at 244 , 399 S.E.2d at 784 . [2] There are four comparative negligence systems: pure, slight-gross, and two modified approaches. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company
green
2 sentences1997NOTES [1] In Nelson , the supreme court referred the bench and bar to Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984), quashed on procedural grounds, 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985), for "an exhaustive analytical discussion of the history and merits of comparative negligence." 303 S.C. at 244 , 399 S.E.2d at 784 . [2] There are four comparative negligence systems: pure, slight-gross, and two modified approaches. 1997NOTES [1] In Nelson , the supreme court referred the bench and bar to Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984), quashed on procedural grounds, 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985), for "an exhaustive analytical discussion of the history and merits of comparative negligence." 303 S.C. at 244 , 399 S.E.2d at 784 . [2] There are four comparative negligence systems: pure, slight-gross, and two modified approaches. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Langley v. Boyter
green
2 sentences1997NOTES [1] In Nelson , the supreme court referred the bench and bar to Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984), quashed on procedural grounds, 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985), for "an exhaustive analytical discussion of the history and merits of comparative negligence." 303 S.C. at 244 , 399 S.E.2d at 784 . [2] There are four comparative negligence systems: pure, slight-gross, and two modified approaches. 1997NOTES [1] In Nelson , the supreme court referred the bench and bar to Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162 , 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984), quashed on procedural grounds, 286 S.C. 85 , 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985), for "an exhaustive analytical discussion of the history and merits of comparative negligence." 303 S.C. at 244 , 399 S.E.2d at 784 . [2] There are four comparative negligence systems: pure, slight-gross, and two modified approaches. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Senn v. Sun Printing Co.
green
2 sentences1996Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S.C. 169 , 367 S.E.2d 456 (Ct.App.1988); see Hoeffner v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361 , 429 S.E2d 190 (1993) (the defense of assumption of the risk applies where the plaintiff assumes a risk of harm arising from the defendant's negligent or reckless conduct); Mayes v. Paxton, 313 S.C. 109 , 437 S.E.2d 66 (1993) (in the absence of express consent to assume the risk, the plaintiff's consent can be implied where he understands and appreciates a known danger created by the defendant, and then freely and voluntarily exposes himself to it). 1996Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S.C. 169 , 367 S.E.2d 456 (Ct.App.1988); see Hoeffner v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361 , 429 S.E2d 190 (1993) (the defense of assumption of the risk applies where the plaintiff assumes a risk of harm arising from the defendant's negligent or reckless conduct); Mayes v. Paxton, 313 S.C. 109 , 437 S.E.2d 66 (1993) (in the absence of express consent to assume the risk, the plaintiff's consent can be implied where he understands and appreciates a known danger created by the defendant, and then freely and voluntarily exposes himself to it). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Mayes v. Paxton
green
2 sentences1996Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S.C. 169 , 367 S.E.2d 456 (Ct.App.1988); see Hoeffner v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361 , 429 S.E2d 190 (1993) (the defense of assumption of the risk applies where the plaintiff assumes a risk of harm arising from the defendant's negligent or reckless conduct); Mayes v. Paxton, 313 S.C. 109 , 437 S.E.2d 66 (1993) (in the absence of express consent to assume the risk, the plaintiff's consent can be implied where he understands and appreciates a known danger created by the defendant, and then freely and voluntarily exposes himself to it). 1996Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S.C. 169 , 367 S.E.2d 456 (Ct.App.1988); see Hoeffner v. The Citadel, 311 S.C. 361 , 429 S.E2d 190 (1993) (the defense of assumption of the risk applies where the plaintiff assumes a risk of harm arising from the defendant's negligent or reckless conduct); Mayes v. Paxton, 313 S.C. 109 , 437 S.E.2d 66 (1993) (in the absence of express consent to assume the risk, the plaintiff's consent can be implied where he understands and appreciates a known danger created by the defendant, and then freely and voluntarily exposes himself to it). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Easler v. HEJAZ TEMPLE OF GREENVILLE, SC
green
1 sentence1986Easler v. Hejaz Temple, 285 S. C. 348, 329 S. E. (2d) 753 (1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.