Being injured by a drunk driver carries a particular kind of injustice because the crash that upended your life was entirely preventable. South Carolina law recognizes this, allowing not only compensation for your losses but, in many drunk driving cases, punitive damages that are not subject to the usual caps.
Under state law, you have three years to file and can recover as long as you were 50 percent or less at fault. At the Arndt Law Firm, we represent people injured in drunk driving accidents across Goose Creek and Berkeley County, so if you wonder whether you are owed compensation after receiving an injury, contact us: the first consultation is free.
After a drunk driving crash, two distinct legal processes can follow, and understanding the difference matters to an injured person.
The criminal case is brought by the state against the drunk driver to punish the crime of driving under the influence, and it can result in penalties like fines, license suspension, and jail. The injured person is a witness in that case, but the criminal prosecution does not compensate them for their injuries.
The civil claim is the injured person's own claim against the drunk driver and any other responsible parties to recover compensation for medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and other losses. This claim proceeds independently of the criminal case, with its own rules and its own timeline, and an injured person does not need to wait for the criminal case to conclude to pursue it.
The outcome of the criminal case does not control the civil claim, though evidence from it can be useful. This distinction matters because an injured person sometimes assumes that the criminal prosecution will address their losses, or that a conviction is necessary for a civil claim. Neither is true.
The civil claim is the path to compensation; it stands on its own, and it can succeed even where the criminal case resolves differently, because the civil standard of proof is lower than the criminal standard.
A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while a civil claim requires only the greater weight of the evidence, which means a civil claim can succeed even if the criminal case ends in an acquittal, a dismissal, or a plea to a lesser charge.
For example, if you are driving on Red Bank Road and someone driving on Forest Lawn Avenue runs a red light and hits you on the side, hurting you in the process, it is up to you to file a civil claim. The criminal case, on the other hand, is brought by the state of South Carolina.
One of the most significant features of a drunk driving claim is the availability of punitive damages, which are meant to punish especially blameworthy conduct and to deter it, rather than to compensate the injured person.
South Carolina allows punitive damages where the injured person proves by clear and convincing evidence that the at-fault party acted willfully, wantonly, or recklessly, and driving while impaired is conduct that frequently meets this standard. A drunk driver who gets behind the wheel after drinking is engaging in the kind of reckless conduct punitive damages address.
What makes drunk driving cases particularly notable is how South Carolina treats the cap on punitive damages. The state generally caps punitive damages at the greater of three times compensatory damages or 500,000 dollars under South Carolina Code section 15-32-530.
But the statute lifts that cap in certain circumstances, including where the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the conduct that caused the harm. This means that in many drunk driving cases, the usual ceiling on punitive damages does not apply.
The practical effect is meaningful. In an ordinary negligence case, punitive damages, if available at all, are limited by the cap, but in a case where the at-fault driver’s judgment was substantially impaired, that limit can be removed, allowing a punitive award that reflects the full gravity of the conduct.
A simple illustration shows the difference: if a crash produces 400,000 dollars in compensatory damages, the ordinary cap would set a ceiling on punitive damages. However, if the driver was impaired, and the exception applies, that statutory ceiling is removed, and the punitive award is governed by what the evidence and the law otherwise allow rather than by the cap.
This makes the impaired-driving exception one of the most important features of a drunk driving claim, and establishing the driver's impairment is central both to the liability case and to the availability of uncapped punitive damages.
The removal of the cap reflects a deliberate legislative judgment that impaired driving is among the conduct society most wants to deter, and it gives a drunk driving claim a dimension that an ordinary negligence claim lacks, which is why the evidence of intoxication from the police investigation and any testing matters so much.
Punitive damages rules apply only to private defendants. If the at-fault driver was a government employee acting within the scope of employment, the claim may proceed under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, which caps recovery at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence and prohibits any award of punitive damages, under section 15-78-120.
In some drunk driving cases, responsibility extends beyond the driver to a business that served them alcohol, and South Carolina law recognizes this through what is generally called dram shop liability. South Carolina does not have a single dram shop statute, but liability is built from the state's alcohol-control laws together with negligence principles.
A business that serves alcohol to a person who is visibly or knowingly intoxicated, or to a minor, can face civil liability when that person then causes a crash.
The standard is not merely that the establishment served someone who turned out to be drunk. Under Hartfield v. The Getaway Lounge & Grill, Inc. (2010), the question is whether the establishment knowingly served an intoxicated person, or was confronted with information (from the person’s appearance or otherwise) that would lead a prudent person to believe they were intoxicated. The claimant must also prove that the service proximately caused the crash: a statutory violation alone does not make the establishment liable.
This form of liability matters because it can provide an additional source of recovery, particularly important when the drunk driver carries inadequate insurance. A bar, restaurant, brewery, or other licensed establishment that continued serving an obviously intoxicated patron who then drove and caused a serious crash may share responsibility for the resulting harm.
Establishing this requires evidence about the service of alcohol, the patron's condition, and what the establishment knew or should have known, which makes prompt investigation important before that evidence disappears.
South Carolina law on establishment liability changed in a significant way effective January 1, 2026.
Under the change, when both the drunk driver and the establishment are found liable, the establishment is responsible for 50 percent of the plaintiff's actual damages, rather than potentially being held responsible for the full amount as could happen under the prior rule, and the drunk driver and other responsible parties can now appear on the verdict form.
This is current South Carolina law for crashes in 2026 and after, and it shapes how a dram shop claim is structured and what it can recover. Under the rule now in effect, the establishment is one source among several rather than a backstop for the entire loss, which makes it all the more important to identify every responsible party and every applicable policy.
South Carolina's modified comparative negligence rule governs drunk driving claims, allowing an injured person to recover as long as they were 50 percent or less at fault, reducing the recovery by their percentage, and barring it at 51 percent or more, under Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company (1991).
In a case where the other driver was drunk, fault is often clear, since the impaired driver bears responsibility, but the rule still governs the analysis.
Even in a drunk driving case, the at-fault driver's insurer may try to assign some fault to the injured person, arguing that they could have avoided the crash or contributed to it in some way. These arguments are met by establishing the facts of the crash and the central role of the driver's impairment.
The driver's intoxication is powerful evidence of fault, and it tends to place responsibility squarely on the impaired driver, but the injured person's case is still strengthened by developing the full picture of how the crash happened.
Where a dram shop claim is involved, the fault analysis incorporates the establishment's share alongside the driver's, under the rules now in effect. The allocation of responsibility among the driver, any establishment, and any other parties shapes what each is responsible for, and the 2026 change to establishment liability affects how that allocation works.
Understanding how fault is apportioned among the responsible parties is part of building a drunk driving claim that reaches the full recovery available.
Yes, as long as you were 50 percent or less at fault. South Carolina law, under Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company (1991), establishes a comparative negligence rule. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, and it is barred completely at 51 percent. A key part of building a strong claim is keeping your share of fault low.
Drunk driving crashes often cause severe injuries, and the drunk driver's insurance is frequently insufficient to cover the harm, which makes identifying every source of recovery especially important.
The starting point is the driver's liability policy, but the state's minimum limits are low: under South Carolina Code section 38-77-140, the law requires only $25,000 in bodily injury coverage per person and $50,000 per accident. A serious drunk driving injury can far exceed them. When that happens, additional sources of coverage become critical to addressing the full harm.
The injured person's own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is often a key source. South Carolina makes uninsured motorist coverage mandatory and requires that underinsured coverage be offered, and these coverages on the injured person's own policy can apply when the drunk driver has no insurance or too little, with stacking sometimes available to increase the amount.
Because drunk drivers are disproportionately likely to be uninsured or underinsured, this coverage is frequently essential in these cases, as in many other Goose Creek car accident claims.
A dram shop claim against an establishment that overserved the driver can provide another source, subject to the current rules on establishment liability. Where the driver was working at the time, an employer's policy may respond, and other responsible parties may exist depending on the circumstances.
Identifying every responsible party and every applicable policy is what allows a serious drunk driving claim to reach the resources the injury requires, and the punitive damages available in these cases can add to the recovery beyond the compensatory coverage. If a crash is fatal, South Carolina's wrongful death and survival statutes allow the family and estate to recover through a Goose Creek wrongful death claim.
A drunk driving accident claim in Goose Creek must be filed within three years of the crash, under South Carolina Code section 15-3-530(5). A wrongful death claim’s deadline is also three years, but under section 15-3-530(6) that period runs from the date of death, which may be later than the date of the collision.
It can. If the at-fault driver carried only South Carolina's minimum coverage or none at all, your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage may apply. By having a car accident lawyer in Goose Creek review your policy, you can find an additional source of recovery.
Drunk driving crashes occur throughout the Goose Creek area, shaped by the area's roads and its character. The restaurants, bars, and the area's growing number of craft breweries serve patrons who then travel the surrounding roads, sometimes impaired, and the combination of these establishments, busy corridors, and the heavy traffic of a growing community creates conditions where impaired-driving crashes happen.
US-52, the city's main artery, and the routes connecting Goose Creek to the broader metro carry this traffic, and a driver leaving an establishment impaired can encounter the same heavy commuter and commercial-truck volume that the area's corridors carry throughout the day and into the evening.
The area's connection to the interstate carries its own risk. Interstate 26, a short distance from Goose Creek, carries heavy traffic including drivers passing through the region, and impaired driving on the interstate and the major surface routes produces some of the most serious crashes.
Nighttime and weekend hours carry elevated risk, as they do everywhere, and the consequences fall on innocent people who happened to be on the road when an impaired driver was behind the wheel.
When a crash involves a business that overserved the driver, the local establishment may become part of the claim under South Carolina's dram shop principles and the current rules on establishment liability.
Identifying where the driver had been drinking, and whether an establishment served them while they were visibly intoxicated, is part of investigating a Goose Creek drunk driving case, and this investigation is most productive when it begins quickly, because the records and witnesses that connect a driver to the establishment that overserved them grow harder to obtain as time passes.
The steps taken after a crash with a suspected drunk driver protect both health and the claim, and some are specific to the impaired-driving context.
The priority is medical care, given how severe these crashes tend to be, and prompt treatment both addresses the injury and creates the record that connects it to the crash. An able person should accept evaluation even when injuries are not yet obvious.
At the scene, ensuring that law enforcement responds is especially important in a suspected drunk driving crash, because the officers will investigate the driver's impairment, conduct field sobriety and breath testing, and document their findings.
This investigation creates evidence of the driver's intoxication that is central to the civil claim, including the availability of punitive damages, so a documented police response matters more here than in an ordinary crash. To the extent injuries allow, photographs of the scene and the vehicles and the names of witnesses preserve additional evidence.
In the period that follows, preserving evidence and acting promptly protect the claim. Evidence of where the driver had been drinking, which can support a dram shop claim, is time-sensitive, since an establishment's records and witnesses become harder to obtain as time passes.
Keeping all medical records and documentation builds the damages case, and being cautious about giving recorded statements to the driver's insurer guards against early tactics. Because the evidence of impairment and overservice can disappear, seeking advice early helps preserve what these claims depend on.
| Drunk driving claim feature | What it means |
| Punitive damages | Available for impaired driving; the usual cap is lifted |
| Dram shop liability | A business that overserved may share responsibility |
| 2026 establishment rule | Establishment liable for 50% of actual damages when both it and the driver are liable |
| UM/UIM coverage | Often essential, since drunk drivers are frequently underinsured |
Yes. The civil claim is separate from the criminal prosecution. You do not need to wait for the criminal case, and you can recover even if the criminal case resolves differently, because the civil standard of proof is lower.
Often yes. South Carolina allows punitive damages for reckless conduct like impaired driving, and the usual cap on punitive damages is lifted when the driver was under the influence, which can significantly increase the recovery.
Possibly. A business that served a visibly intoxicated person or a minor who then caused a crash can share liability. Under a rule effective in 2026, the establishment is responsible for 50 percent of actual damages when both it and the driver are liable.
Three years from the date of the crash under South Carolina Code section 15-3-530(5). A shorter deadline may apply if a government entity is responsible.
Your own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage may apply, and a dram shop claim against an establishment that overserved the driver may provide another source of recovery.
The Arndt Law Firm handles drunk driving cases on a contingency basis, meaning no fee unless there is a recovery. A free consultation is the usual way to discuss whether you have a claim.
The Arndt Law Firm pursues every Goose Creek drunk driving case for the full measure of accountability the law allows, establishing the driver's impairment, pursuing the uncapped punitive damages that impaired driving can support, investigating whether an establishment overserved the driver, and identifying every source of coverage to address what are often catastrophic injuries.
Attorney Arndt previously defended insurers, so we understand how these claims are evaluated and contested, and we build each case to hold the responsible parties fully accountable.
If you or a loved one was injured by a drunk driver in Goose Creek or anywhere in Berkeley County, acting early is of the utmost importance. Do not hesitate to contact us or call (843) 310-4645: the consultation is free, and we handle these cases on a contingency basis, so there are no fees unless we recover for you.
Last reviewed: June 2026
This page was reviewed by Jonathan S. Arndt, licensed in South Carolina since 2018.
