Yes, new South Carolina laws may affect injury claims in 2026, especially when more than one person, business, driver, property owner, alcohol-serving establishment, or other party may share blame for an accident.
The biggest change is that South Carolina Act 42, also known as H.3430 or the Tort Reform and Liquor Liability Act, changes how fault can be divided among defendants, settling parties, and certain nondefendant tortfeasors.
In plain English, this means your case may involve more argument over who caused the injury, what percentage of fault belongs to each person or business, and how much each party may legally have to pay.
South Carolina Act 42 takes effect January 1, 2026, and applies only to causes of action or claims arising or accruing after January 1, 2026, except for the collegiate sports beer-and-wine provision, which took effect upon approval by the Governor. That means the date of the accident or injury matters. A case from before 2026 may be analyzed under prior law, while a case arising after January 1, 2026, may involve the new fault-allocation rules.
1. What Changed Under South Carolina Act 42?
South Carolina Act 42 amended part of South Carolina’s Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, specifically Section 15-38-15, which deals with joint and several liability and apportionment of fault. The law now says that in certain tort cases involving indivisible damages caused by more than one tortfeasor, joint and several liability does not apply to a defendant whose conduct is determined to be less than 50% of the total fault. A defendant found to be less than 50% at fault is liable only for that defendant’s percentage of the indivisible damages.
That wording matters. The law does not simply say “everyone pays only their own share.” It says the protection against joint and several liability applies to a defendant whose conduct is less than fifty percent of the total fault. That total includes the fault of defendants, tortfeasors, and the plaintiff’s comparative negligence, if any.
For injury victims, the practical impact is this: fault percentages may become even more important. A defendant may try to reduce its exposure by arguing that another driver, contractor, property manager, security company, alcohol-serving business, product manufacturer, or even the injured person should receive some share of fault.
This does not take away the right to bring a valid personal injury claim. It does mean that early investigation may matter more. The sooner evidence is gathered, witnesses are identified, and potential responsible parties are reviewed, the better positioned an injured person may be to respond when the defense tries to shift blame.
2. Why Fault Allocation May Matter More in 2026
Fault allocation means dividing responsibility among the people or entities that legally caused the injury. In a simple two-car wreck, the argument may focus on which driver violated the rules of the road. In a more complex case, however, the picture may involve several parties.
For example, a trucking accident may involve the truck driver, trucking company, maintenance provider, cargo loader, or another motorist.
A slip and fall case may involve the property owner, tenant, cleaning company, maintenance contractor, or another business responsible for the unsafe condition. A negligent security case may involve the property owner, security contractor, event organizer, or another party with control over the premises.
Under the amended statute, the jury or court may determine the percentage of liability attributable to each defendant and tortfeasor whose actions were a proximate cause of the indivisible injury, death, property damage, or economic loss. The statute also says the total percentages of fault attributed to the plaintiff, defendants, and tortfeasors must equal 100%.
That makes the case more than a simple question of “Was the defendant negligent?” In many cases, the defense may also ask, “Who else can we put on the verdict form?”
This may come up in:
Car accident claims
Truck accident claims
Motorcycle accident claims
Pedestrian and bicycle injury claims
Slip and fall cases
Negligent security cases
Construction accident cases
Alcohol-related crash cases
Wrongful death claims
Cases involving multiple businesses or contractors
South Carolina already uses comparative negligence principles, meaning the injured person’s own share of fault can affect recovery. Act 42 does not erase that concept. Instead, it adds more importance to how fault is divided among all legally relevant actors under the amended statute.
3. Can a Defendant Blame Someone Who Is Not in the Lawsuit?
In some situations, yes. One major part of Act 42 is the process for allocating fault to a nondefendant tortfeasor. A nondefendant tortfeasor is a person or business that is not currently named as a defendant but is alleged to have contributed to the injury.
Under the new statute, a tortfeasor generally must be disclosed within 180 days of the commencement of the action, unless the court allows a later disclosure for good cause. The plaintiff may add that tortfeasor as a party defendant, and unless the plaintiff adds that party, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the added tortfeasor’s breach of duty was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
That means a defendant may argue, for example:
“The other driver caused part of the crash.”
“The maintenance company should share blame.”
“The security contractor failed to act.”
“The drunk driver belongs on the verdict form.”
“The property manager, not just the owner, contributed to the hazard.”
“A subcontractor caused part of the injury.”
However, this is not a free-for-all. Act 42 also lists situations where a nondefendant tortfeasor must not be added to the verdict form. These exclusions include, among others, situations where the nondefendant tortfeasor is immune from liability or otherwise not subject to suit, where the nondefendant’s conduct was willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional, where the cause of action involves strict liability or asbestos, and certain actions brought by governmental entities.
The plaintiff may also challenge the addition of the tortfeasor under South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 and Rule 50. If those motions are denied, then the tortfeasor appears on the verdict form.
For injured people, the lesson is simple: do not assume the insurance company’s blame-shifting theory is legally valid. The defense may try to point the finger somewhere else, but it still has to satisfy the law’s requirements.
4. How Could the New Law Affect Settlements?
Settlement strategy may become more complicated after January 1, 2026. The amended law says that a settling tortfeasor, whether or not a party, shall be added to the verdict form unless excluded by the statute.
That means settling with one party does not always remove that party from the fault discussion. For example, imagine a multi-vehicle crash where the injured person settles with one driver but continues the case against another driver or business. The remaining defendant may try to have the settling party listed on the verdict form so the jury can assign that person or business a share of fault.
This does not mean settlement is bad. Many personal injury claims still resolve through settlement, and settlement may be the right decision in many cases. But it does mean that settlement should be handled carefully.
Before signing a release, an injured person should understand:
Who is being released
Whether other defendants remain
Whether the settling party may still appear on the verdict form
Whether the release is too broad
Whether insurance coverage remains available
Whether underinsured motorist coverage may apply
Whether the settlement could affect recovery from other parties
This is one reason quick settlements can be risky. An insurance company may offer money early, before the injured person understands the full injury, the available coverage, or the number of parties who may be legally responsible. In a 2026 South Carolina injury claim, identifying all potentially responsible parties early may become even more important.
5. How Does Act 42 Affect Alcohol-Related Injury Claims?
Act 42 also makes important changes involving liquor liability, alcohol service, alcohol server training, and DUI-related civil claims.
The law amended Section 61-6-2220 to say that a person or establishment licensed to sell alcoholic liquors or liquor by the drink may not knowingly sell those beverages to persons in an intoxicated condition.
The law also created alcohol server training requirements. Under the statute, an alcohol server or manager must complete alcohol server training and obtain an alcohol server certificate. If the server or manager does not already have a certificate at the time of employment in that capacity, the licensee or permittee must provide training within 30 calendar days of employment. The South Carolina Department of Revenue’s current guidance states that anyone who works at least 10 hours per week serving alcohol for on-premises consumption, along with managers who oversee alcohol service, must complete an approved server training program by May 1, 2026, or within 30 days of employment.
Act 42 also added a DUI-related verdict-form provision. If a tortfeasor is charged under certain DUI statutes, that tortfeasor shall appear on the jury verdict form upon motion of the defendant, provided the motion is made within 180 days of the start of the action or later for good cause shown. If a verdict is rendered against both a licensee and a defendant charged under the listed DUI statutes, then the licensee is jointly and severally liable for 50% of the plaintiff’s actual damages.
For alcohol-related injury cases, this may matter in crashes involving:
Drunk drivers
Bars and restaurants
Nightclubs
Alcohol-serving events
Alcohol service to visibly intoxicated people
Fatal crashes involving impaired driving
The law also changed liquor liability insurance rules. Businesses open after 5:00 p.m. to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption generally must maintain at least $1 million in liquor liability insurance unless they qualify for mitigation factors. SCDOR guidance says permanent licensees’ liquor liability coverage cannot drop below $300,000, special event licensees’ coverage cannot drop below $150,000, and per-occurrence coverage must be at least 50% of the total aggregate limit.
For injury victims, insurance matters because available coverage can affect whether compensation is collectible after a serious injury or wrongful death. For businesses, compliance matters because failure to follow insurance, training, or alcohol-service rules may create licensing and liability problems.
What Should Injury Victims Do After January 1, 2026?
If you are injured in South Carolina after January 1, 2026, the safest approach is to assume that fault will be disputed. Even when the facts seem obvious, an insurance company may look for another person, business, contractor, or condition to blame.
First, get medical care. Your health comes first, and medical records help connect your injuries to the accident.
Second, document everything. Take photos of the scene, vehicle damage, dangerous property condition, visible injuries, weather conditions, lighting, traffic signs, flooring, stairs, handrails, or anything else that may matter.
Third, save names and contact information for witnesses. Witnesses can become harder to locate as time passes.
Fourth, avoid giving recorded statements without understanding the consequences. Adjusters may ask questions in a way that creates arguments about comparative fault or other responsible parties.
Fifth, do not rush into settlement. A fast settlement may not account for future medical care, lost wages, permanent injury, pain and suffering, or the effect of other parties being added to the case.
Sixth, speak with a South Carolina personal injury attorney early. Under Act 42, early investigation may be critical because the case may involve fault allocation, nondefendant tortfeasors, settling parties, alcohol-service issues, insurance coverage, and evidence that can disappear quickly.
Conclusion: The New Law Makes Strategy More Important
South Carolina Act 42 does not eliminate valid personal injury claims. It does, however, change how many claims may be argued, valued, defended, and settled after January 1, 2026.
The biggest practical change is that defendants may have more opportunity to argue that someone else shares responsibility. That could include another driver, a maintenance company, a contractor, a property manager, a security company, a settling party, or a DUI-related tortfeasor in an alcohol case. The law also changes alcohol-service requirements, alcohol-server training rules, liquor liability insurance rules, and certain DUI-related verdict-form procedures.
For injury victims, the response should be simple: preserve evidence early, get medical care, avoid rushed settlements, and understand who may be legally responsible before signing anything.
Bill Connor is a combat veteran attorney, retired U.S. Army Colonel, and Orangeburg personal injury lawyer. His attorney profile notes his AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rating by Martindale-Hubbell® and several seven-figure results for clients, including a multi-million-dollar settlement in 2023 and an over-million-dollar resolution in 2024. The Bill Connor Law Firm is based in Orangeburg, South Carolina, and its website describes the firm as rooted in Christian ethics and focused on personal injury, probate, civil litigation, and general practice law.
If you were injured in South Carolina and are unsure how the 2026 tort reform law may affect your claim, Bill Connor Law Firm can review the facts, identify possible fault-allocation issues, and help you understand the next step before an insurance company frames the case against you.