After a crash, slip-and-fall, or other injury, one of the first worries people have is: “What if I share some of the blame?”
In South Carolina, being partly at fault does not automatically end your case—but it can reduce what you recover, and if your share of fault is too high, it can bar recovery altogether.
South Carolina follows a modified comparative negligence system.
That rule comes from South Carolina appellate decisions, including the Supreme Court’s adoption of modified comparative negligence in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co. (1991).
Below is a practical, plain-English guide to how comparative negligence works in South Carolina and what it can mean for your claim.
South Carolina’s “50% Rule” in Plain English
Under South Carolina’s modified comparative negligence system:
- You can recover damages if your fault is 50% or less.
- You cannot recover if your fault is 51% or more (because your negligence is greater than the defendant’s). (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
This is often called the “50% bar rule.” It’s why arguments about fault percentages matter so much in settlement negotiations and at trial.
How Fault Percentages Reduce Your Compensation
If you are 50% or less at fault, your total damages are reduced by your percentage of fault.
A quick example
Assume a jury finds:
- Total damages: $100,000
- Your fault: 20%
- Defendant’s fault: 80%
Your recovery is reduced by 20%, so you receive $80,000.
If the jury instead finds you 50% at fault, you’d receive $50,000. But if the jury finds you 51% at fault, you recover $0 under South Carolina’s modified comparative negligence rule. (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
Where These Percentages Come From
Fault percentages are typically decided by:
- The jury (in a jury trial), or
- The judge (in a bench trial)
They consider evidence like witness testimony, photographs/video, medical records, accident reconstruction, cell phone data, weather/lighting conditions, and whether anyone violated safety rules.
In everyday cases, fault arguments often focus on questions like:
- Who had the right-of-way?
- Was someone speeding or following too closely?
- Was a warning sign posted (and visible)?
- Did someone ignore a known hazard?
- Was someone distracted or impaired?
Comparative Negligence vs. “Assumption of Risk”
People sometimes hear, “You assumed the risk, so you can’t recover.” South Carolina law in this area has evolved in a way that often overlaps with comparative negligence.
In Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime (1998), the South Carolina Supreme Court addressed how assumption of risk fits into the comparative fault framework, explaining that it’s inconsistent with the premise of comparative fault to automatically bar a plaintiff who is 50% or less at fault. (South Carolina Judicial Branch)
What this means in many real cases: conduct that used to be argued as “assumption of risk” may instead be treated as part of the fault allocation—and that allocation directly affects whether you are under or over the 50% threshold.
Multiple Defendants: Apportionment and the January 1, 2026 Update
Cases often involve more than one at-fault party (for example, two drivers, or a driver plus a company).
South Carolina’s apportionment rules are addressed in the South Carolina Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, including S.C. Code § 15-38-15 on apportionment and when joint and several liability applies.
Important note for current cases: the South Carolina Legislature included an update where one version of § 15-38-15 was effective until January 1, 2026, and another version is effective January 1, 2026 and after.
Because today is March 6, 2026, the January 1, 2026 version is the operative text for new cases now. (South Carolina Legislature)
In general terms, § 15-38-15 describes how fault can be apportioned among defendants (and, in the newer version’s language, among “tortfeasors”) and how the fact-finder determines percentages that must total 100% when including any plaintiff comparative fault.
Why Insurers Push “Shared Fault” Arguments
Because the difference between 50% and 51% can be the difference between some recovery and no recovery, insurance adjusters often emphasize anything that could increase your percentage of fault, such as:
- not wearing a seatbelt (when applicable to damages arguments),
- speeding,
- crossing outside a crosswalk,
- ignoring a wet floor sign,
- being on a phone,
- delaying medical treatment (often argued as affecting damages).
That doesn’t mean their position is correct—but it explains why the “you were partly at fault” theme is so common.
Practical Steps If You Think You Might Be Partly at Fault
If you’re worried that comparative negligence may apply, focus on preserving and organizing the facts that help keep your fault percentage below the bar and accurately tied to the evidence:
- Document the scene: photos/video of hazards, lighting, signage, vehicle positions, skid marks, and injuries.
- Identify witnesses early: names, numbers, and brief statements.
- Get medical care: consistent records help connect injuries to the event.
- Avoid guessing in recorded statements: stick to what you know firsthand.
- Save digital evidence: dashcam footage, texts, app logs, and call records (when relevant).
Read our car accident checklist here.
A Quick Reminder About Legal Information vs. Legal Advice
Comparative negligence is fact-driven. Two cases can sound similar but come out differently depending on the evidence, witnesses, and how fault is framed at trial. This article is general information, not legal advice for your specific situation.
Worried shared fault will sink your case? Find out where you stand—and what you may still be able to recover.
If you were injured in South Carolina and you’re concerned you may be partly at fault, it’s still worth getting your situation reviewed—because the details that affect fault percentages often aren’t obvious at first.
Contact a South Carolina personal injury lawyer to discuss what happened, what evidence may matter most, and how comparative negligence could impact any potential recovery.