8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Smith v. Edwards, 186 S.C. 186, 191 , 195 S.E. 236, 238 (1938) (“[Assumption of risk] applies to any case ... where the facts proved show that the person against whom the doctrine of assumption of risk is pleaded knew of the danger, appreciated it, and acquiesced therein.”). 2008See, e.g., Smith v. Edwards, 186 S.C. 186, 191 , 195 S.E. 236, 238 (1938) (“[Assumption of risk] applies to any case ... where the facts proved show that the person against whom the doctrine of assumption of risk is pleaded knew of the danger, appreciated it, and acquiesced therein.”). | 1 | 2 |
Senn v. Sun Printing Co.green2 sentences1989Assumption of Risk We turn to the issue of whether the trial judge should have directed a verdict on the grounds of assumption of risk; relative to that doctrine, we quite from Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S. C. 169, 173, 367 S. E. (2d) 456, 458 (Ct. App. 1988): The doctrine of assumption of risk, also known as volenti non fit injuria, means legally that a plaintiff may not recover for an injury to which he assents, i.e., that a person may not recover for an injury received when he voluntarily exposes himself to a known and appreciated danger. 1989Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S. C. 169, 367 S. E. (2d) 456 (Ct. App. 1988). | 1 | 2 |
Watson v. Sellersgreen2 sentences1990See Watson v. Sellers, 299 S.C. 426 , 385 S.E. (2d) 369 (Ct. App. 1989) (The requirements for the doctrine of assumption of risk are: (1) the plaintiff has knowledge of the facts constituting a dangerous condition, (2) he knows the condition is dangerous, (3) he appreciates the nature and extent of the danger, and (4) he voluntarily exposes himself to the danger). 1990See Watson v. Sellers, 299 S.C. 426 , 385 S.E. (2d) 369 (Ct. App. 1989) (The requirements for the doctrine of assumption of risk are: (1) the plaintiff has knowledge of the facts constituting a dangerous condition, (2) he knows the condition is dangerous, (3) he appreciates the nature and extent of the danger, and (4) he voluntarily exposes himself to the danger). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime
green
2 sentences2008Singleton’s Assumption of Risk Davenport edifies: there are four requirements necessary to establish the assumption of risk defense in South Carolina: (1) the plaintiff must have knowledge of the fact constituting a dangerous condition; (2) the plaintiff must know the condition is dangerous; (3) the plaintiff must appreciate the nature and extent of the danger; and (4) the plaintiff must voluntarily expose himself or herself to the danger. 333 S.C. at 78-79 , 508 S.E.2d at 569 . 2008Singleton’s Assumption of Risk Davenport edifies: there are four requirements necessary to establish the assumption of risk defense in South Carolina: (1) the plaintiff must have knowledge of the fact constituting a dangerous condition; (2) the plaintiff must know the condition is dangerous; (3) the plaintiff must appreciate the nature and extent of the danger; and (4) the plaintiff must voluntarily expose himself or herself to the danger. 333 S.C. at 78-79 , 508 S.E.2d at 569 . | 2 | 2008–2025 |
Griffin v. Griffin
green
2 sentences1989Griffin v. Griffin, 282 S. C. 288, 318 S. E. (2d) 24 (Ct. App. 1984). 1988Griffin v. Griffin, 282 S. C. 288, 318 S. E. (2d) 24 (Ct. App. 1984). | 2 | 1988–1989 |
Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company
green
2 sentences2025Following the adoption of comparative negligence, see generally, Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243 , 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991); our supreme court had to reconcile the assumption of risk doctrine with comparative negligence. 2025Following the adoption of comparative negligence, see generally, Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243 , 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991); our supreme court had to reconcile the assumption of risk doctrine with comparative negligence. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Steinmeyer v. Marine Hotel Corp.
green
1 sentence1965As was pointed out in Steinmeyer v. Marine Hotel Corporation, 142 S. C. 358, 140 S. E. 695 , the court will not ordinarily dismiss a complaint on demurrer on the ground of assumption of risk, such being usually an affirmative defense and a question for the jury. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.