South Carolina Code

S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100 (2026)

When and where to institute action; requirement of special verdict specifying proportionate liability of multiple defendants

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section SC-LEGscstatehouse.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided for in Section 15-3-40, an action for damages under this chapter may be instituted at any time within two years after the loss was or should have been discovered. Provided, that if a claim for damages was filed and disallowed or rejected an action for damages filed under this chapter, based upon the same occurrence as the claim, may be instituted within three years after the loss was or should have been discovered.

(b) Jurisdiction for any action brought under this chapter is in the circuit court and brought in the county in which the act or omission occurred.

(c) In all actions brought pursuant to this chapter when an alleged joint tortfeasor is named as party defendant in addition to the governmental entity, the trier of fact must return a special verdict specifying the proportion of monetary liability of each defendant against whom liability is determined.

HISTORY: 1986 Act No. 463, SECTION 1; 1988 Act No. 352, SECTION 8.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Jeter v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 633 S.E.2d 143 (S.C. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jeter v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 633 S.E.2d 143 (S.C. 2006). · cites it 25× “Did the Court of Appeals err in construing S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100(b)? *438 II. Did the Court of Appeals err in finding the lower court did not abuse its discretion by transferring venue to Fairfield County under S.”

Madison Ex Rel. Bryant v. Babcock Ctr., 638 S.E.2d 650 (S.C. 2006). · cites it 4× “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Appellant argues the circuit court erred in relying on the two-year statute of limitations contained in S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100(a) (2005) to rule that certain allegations of Department's negligence are time-barred.”

Smalls v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 528 S.E.2d 682 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “Department argues such apportionment is mandated by S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100(c). We disagree.”

Chester v. South Carolina Dep't of Pub. Saf., 698 S.E.2d 559 (S.C. 2010). · cites it 6× “Appellant contends the trial judge erred in ordering her, the plaintiff in this Tort Claims Act (TCA) suit brought against three state agencies (respondents), to join other alleged joint tortfeasors as defendants at respondents’ request, in order to effectuate the respondents’…”

Se. Freight Lines v. City of Hartsville, 443 S.E.2d 395 (S.C. 1994). · cites it 10× “The City and the State opposed the motion on the ground that government entities are only responsible for their portion of liability under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100 (c) (Supp. 1993) and that the total liability of the government entities in this case could not exceed $250,000…”

Jeter v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 595 S.E.2d 827 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 26× “S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100 (Supp.2003) (emphasis added).”

Black v. Lexington Sch. Dist. No. 2, 488 S.E.2d 327 (S.C. 1997). · cites it 4× “However, section 15-78-100 further provides that the limitations period is extended an additional year (three years total) when the claimant has filed a verified claim pursuant to S.”

Summer v. Carpenter, 492 S.E.2d 55 (S.C. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 15-78-100(a) (Supp.1996) (an action for damages under the Tort Claims Act may be instituted at any time within two years after the loss was or should have been discovered).”

Capco of Summerville, Inc. v. J.H. Gayle Constr. Co., 628 S.E.2d 38 (S.C. 2006). · cites it 2× “In Southeastern, we held the Contribution Act, to the extent it provided unlimited pro rata liability for joint tortfeasors, was inconsistent with, and had effectively repealed those portions of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 15-78-100(c) and 15-78…”

Young v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr., 511 S.E.2d 413 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100(a) (Supp.1998); S.”

Smith v. Tiffany, 799 S.E.2d 479 (S.C. 2017). “In reaffirming the plaintiff chooses rule in Chester , we explained, “[w]e are not persuaded that the General Assembly, in enacting § 15-78-100(c) ... intended to abrogate the tort plaintiffs right to choose her defendant.”

Searcy v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 402 S.E.2d 486 (S.C. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “To encourage a person to file a claim before bringing suit, Section 15-78-100(a) gives a person whose claim is later disallowed or rejected three rather than two years from the date the loss was or should have been discovered to commence an action under the Tort Claims Act.”

Show all 32 citing cases →

— S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100(C) — 1 case

Dykema Ex Rel. Est. of Dykema v. Carolina Emergency Physicians, P.C., 560 S.E.2d 894 (S.C. 2002).

— S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100(a) — 11 cases

Madison Ex Rel. Bryant v. Babcock Ctr., 638 S.E.2d 650 (S.C. 2006). “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Appellant argues the circuit court erred in relying on the two-year statute of limitations contained in S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100(a) (2005) to rule that certain allegations of Department's negligence are time-barred.”

Summer v. Carpenter, 492 S.E.2d 55 (S.C. 1997). “§ 15-78-100(a) (Supp.1996) (an action for damages under the Tort Claims Act may be instituted at any time within two years after the loss was or should have been discovered).”

Young v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr., 511 S.E.2d 413 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999). “See S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100(a) (Supp.1998); S.”

Searcy v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 402 S.E.2d 486 (S.C. Ct. App. 1991). “To encourage a person to file a claim before bringing suit, Section 15-78-100(a) gives a person whose claim is later disallowed or rejected three rather than two years from the date the loss was or should have been discovered to commence an action under the Tort Claims Act.”

Black v. Lexington Sch. Dist. No. 2, 488 S.E.2d 327 (S.C. 1997). “However, section 15-78-100 further provides that the limitations period is extended an additional year (three years total) when the claimant has filed a verified claim pursuant to S.”

— S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100(b) — 4 cases

Jeter v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 633 S.E.2d 143 (S.C. 2006). “Did the Court of Appeals err in construing S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100(b)? *438 II. Did the Court of Appeals err in finding the lower court did not abuse its discretion by transferring venue to Fairfield County under S.”

Jeter v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 595 S.E.2d 827 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004). “S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100 (Supp.2003) (emphasis added).”

Bellamy v. Lt. R.C. Borders, 727 F. Supp. 247 (D.S.C. 1989).

Kirby v. SC State Accident Fund (D.S.C. 2024).

— S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100(c) — 9 cases

Smalls v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 528 S.E.2d 682 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000). “Department argues such apportionment is mandated by S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-100(c). We disagree.”

Chester v. South Carolina Dep't of Pub. Saf., 698 S.E.2d 559 (S.C. 2010). “Appellant contends the trial judge erred in ordering her, the plaintiff in this Tort Claims Act (TCA) suit brought against three state agencies (respondents), to join other alleged joint tortfeasors as defendants at respondents’ request, in order to effectuate the respondents’…”

Se. Freight Lines v. City of Hartsville, 443 S.E.2d 395 (S.C. 1994). “The City and the State opposed the motion on the ground that government entities are only responsible for their portion of liability under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100 (c) (Supp. 1993) and that the total liability of the government entities in this case could not exceed $250,000…”

Capco of Summerville, Inc. v. J.H. Gayle Constr. Co., 628 S.E.2d 38 (S.C. 2006). “In Southeastern, we held the Contribution Act, to the extent it provided unlimited pro rata liability for joint tortfeasors, was inconsistent with, and had effectively repealed those portions of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 15-78-100(c) and 15-78…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.