South Carolina Code

S.C. Code Ann. § 27-3-30 (2026)

Duty of care

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Except as specifically recognized by or provided in SECTION 27-3-60, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by persons who have sought and obtained his permission to use it for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to such persons entering for such purposes.

HISTORY: 1962 Code SECTION 51-83; 1968 (55) 3047.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1985–2011 · leading case: Brooks v. Northwood Little League, Inc., 489 S.E.2d 647 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brooks v. Northwood Little League, Inc., 489 S.E.2d 647 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 7× “” S.C.Code Ann. § 27-3-30. Landowners owe “no duty of care to keep the premises safe” for recreational users and need not “give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity” on the property.”

Cole Ex Rel. Est. of Cole v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas, Inc., 584 S.E.2d 405 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “1997) (quoting S.C.Code Ann. § 27-3-30 (1991)). Furthermore, an owner who permits a person to use property for recreational purposes without charge does not: “(a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose[;][or] (b) Confer upon such person the legal status…”

Harris v. Univ. of South Carolina, 706 S.E.2d 45 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “S.C.Code Ann. § 27-3-30 (2007) (emphasis added).”

Chrisley v. United States, 620 F. Supp. 285 (D.S.C. 1985). “Code of Laws, § 27-3-30. Furthermore, the landowner who permits without charge a person who is granted permission to use the land for recreation does not thereby: extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose, confer upon such person using the land the legal…”

Corbett Ex Rel. Est. of Corbett v. City of Myrtle Beach, 521 S.E.2d 276 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “1997) (citing S.C.Code Ann. § 27-3-30 (1991)). The statute defines owner as “the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises.”

Hendrix v. Duke Energy Corp. (S.C. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “§ 27-3-30. There are, however, two exceptions as the statute does not limit liability which otherwise exists for (1) grossly negligent, willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity or (2) injury suffered .”

— S.C. Code Ann. § 27-3-30(a) — 1 case

Hendrix v. Duke Energy Corp. (S.C. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 27-3-30. There are, however, two exceptions as the statute does not limit liability which otherwise exists for (1) grossly negligent, willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity or (2) injury suffered .”

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.