At the Arndt Law Firm, our dedicated team understands how devastating burn injuries can be, not just physically, but emotionally and financially as well. We bring our collective experience to every case, supporting clients across Myrtle Beach and Horry County who are facing the aftermath of serious burns. Our approach is grounded in collaboration and compassion, ensuring each client receives the focused attention and advocacy they deserve.
Burn injury cases often involve complex questions about responsibility, equipment, and the circumstances that led to harm. Our team investigates every angle, working together to identify whether a defective product, unsafe property conditions, or other factors contributed to the injury. We know that the answer to how someone was burned can be the key to holding the right party accountable, and we leave no stone unturned in our search for justice.
When you choose us, you’re not working with just one attorney; you’re gaining the support of a team committed to your recovery. We’re here to guide you through every step, protect your rights, and fight for the compensation you need to move forward.
If you or a loved one has suffered a burn injury in Myrtle Beach or the surrounding area, reach out to our team today for a free consultation. Let us put our experience to work for you.
S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3420 (2024) grants a person riding a bicycle on a roadway all of the rights. It imposes all of the duties of the driver of a vehicle, except as to the special provisions in Article 27 of the chapter and provisions that by their nature cannot apply. The exception is not a footnote: Article 27 is where the rider’s own duties sit, including bike-lane use under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3425 (2024) and lane position under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3430 (2024). A cyclist is a lawful user of the road rather than a tolerated one.
Two duties fall specifically on drivers. A driver must maintain a safe operating distance between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3435 (2024). A driver must also exercise due care to avoid a collision with a pedestrian or bicyclist under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3230 (2024), which is the same provision that protects people on foot and which requires proper precaution when observing a child.
A driver’s violation of Article 27 is not just a ticket. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3500 (2024) grades the fine by the result: up to $100 standing alone, up to $500 where it proximately caused minor injury to a bicyclist, and up to $1,000 where it caused great bodily injury as defined in S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2945 (2024). A statutory violation also supports a negligence per se theory rather than an argument about ordinary care.
South Carolina also makes harassment a separate offense. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3445 (2024) addresses harassing or throwing an object at a person riding a bicycle, reflecting a recognition that cyclists face conduct other road users do not.
S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3430 (2024) sets the rider’s own duties. A cyclist must ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, though riding on the shoulder is optional, not required. A rider may take a lane other than the right-hand lane where only one lane allows continuing on the intended route.
Riders may ride two abreast but no more, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for bicycles, per S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3430(D) (2024). This two-abreast limit is important for group riding: when several riders travel together, compliance with this rule is key, and it is the standard the defense will use in a passing case.
This page does not state a passing distance in feet. Published sources give figures that could not be confirmed against the statute, and a number that cannot be verified is better left off a page than guessed at.
Do cyclists have the same rights as drivers in South Carolina?
Yes, with important exceptions. South Carolina Code of Laws § 56-5-3420 (2024) grants a rider on a public roadway the rights and duties of a driver, except as to special bicycle-specific provisions (including bike-lane use and lane position) and those that by their nature cannot apply. Drivers also owe a cyclist a safe operating distance and a duty of due care to avoid a collision.
A resort market produces a cycling population that differs from a commuting one, and that changes both the collision patterns and the evidence.
Riders on rented bicycles are frequently unfamiliar with the road layout, the direction of one-way streets, and where a bike route begins and ends. They may be riding at low speed, in groups, with children, and without the reflexes a daily rider develops. None of that reduces the driver's duty, and none of it makes a rider less lawfully entitled to the road.
It does affect the evidence. A visiting rider is unlikely to have a handlebar camera, a cycling computer, or a tracking application running, which removes the single most useful category of proof available in a cyclist case. It also means the rider may leave the state within days of the collision.
Rental itself introduces a possible second issue. Where a mechanical failure contributed, the condition and maintenance of the rented bicycle becomes relevant, and the rental business rather than only the driver may be a defendant. Preserving the bicycle matters even more in that situation, and a rental company will want it back.
I was on a rented bike. Does that change anything?
Not as to the driver's duty for a conventional bicycle. It can add a second question where a mechanical failure contributed, since the rental company's maintenance of the bicycle would then be relevant. Preserve the bicycle rather than returning it if a failure is suspected.
One caution for a rental market: South Carolina Code of Laws § 56-5-3230 (2024) due-care duty is written for a person propelling a human-powered vehicle, and Chapter 5 contains no provision classifying electric-assist bicycles. Whether that section covers an e-bike rider, and whether the bicycle article applies at all, is unsettled, so the duty analysis in an e-bike case should not simply be assumed from the pedal-bicycle statutes.
Most bicycle injuries come from a small number of recurring conflicts, and identifying which one occurred shapes the case.
The right hook happens where a vehicle overtakes a cyclist and then turns right across the rider's path. The left cross happens where an oncoming vehicle turns left across the cyclist's line of travel, usually with the driver reporting a misjudgment of the cyclist's speed. Both are failures of the turning driver, and both are routinely characterized the other way.
The driveway and parking lot conflict happens where a vehicle enters or crosses the roadway from private property, which in a market dense with hotel entrances, parking decks, and commercial lots is a frequent scenario. The dooring collision happens when an occupant opens a door into a rider's path, and street parking along oceanfront blocks makes it a live risk.
The unsafe pass involves a vehicle overtaking too closely, engaging the safe operating distance requirement directly.
Each pattern has a different evidence profile. A right hook is proved from vehicle position and signal use. A dooring case turns on door position and timing. An unsafe pass often depends on lane width and whether oncoming traffic made the pass unreasonable.
The South Carolina Department of Public Safety reported that bicyclist fatalities rose to 26 in 2023, up from 25 the previous year, in its Traffic Collision Fact Book.
That figure is statewide and is labeled that way deliberately. It is small in absolute terms and significant relative to the number of people cycling, and it establishes that fatal cyclist collisions in South Carolina were not declining in the most recent published year.
In 2025, Horry County recorded 220 fatal and serious injury collisions, including 38 involving alcohol or drugs and 24 involving a pedestrian. Statewide bicyclist fatalities were 26 in 2023, up from 25 in 2022 (SCDPS Traffic Collision Fact Book).
A cyclist recovers as long as their share of the fault is not greater than the driver's, with the award reduced by that share and barred at 51 percent. The rule comes from Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., a common law decision rather than a statute, which matters because published South Carolina pages sometimes cite a code section governing a different question.
Insurers work from a short list, and each item has an answer grounded in what the law requires. The rider should have been in a bike lane: South Carolina Code of Laws § 56-5-3425(B)(2) (2024) does require a cyclist to use a marked bicycle lane where one is provided alongside the roadway, with two key exceptions: when passing another cyclist, or to avoid an obstruction in the lane.
Where only an adjacent recreational path exists, this requirement does not apply. The same statute also requires motorists not to block the bike lane and to yield to cyclists before entering or crossing it. The actual question is whether a lane existed at that point, whether an exception applied, and whether the driver yielded before crossing the lane. The driver did not see the cyclist: that describes the failure rather than excusing it, since the due care and safe passing duties are not conditioned on having noticed.
The rider came out of nowhere: closing speed and sight lines are measurable, and reconstruction from resting positions, damage patterns, and roadway geometry establishes where a rider was and how long they were visible. The rider was unfamiliar with the area: unfamiliarity is not a breach of any duty a cyclist owes.
Each is a percentage argued from evidence rather than a bar. The general injury analysis covers how apportionment now works, including the verdict form mechanism available since January 2026.
Cyclists are struck by drivers who leave more often than motorists are, and a rider who cannot identify the vehicle assumes the claim is over. Frequently it is not.
Uninsured motorist coverage is mandatory in South Carolina under Section 38-77-150, and may respond where the at-fault driver is unidentified. Underinsured motorist coverage is not required, but Section 38-77-160 requires carriers to offer it up to the insured’s liability limits. UIM coverage is critical for a seriously injured cyclist, because it applies where the at-fault driver’s liability limits or a statutory cap run out before the damages do. Check every auto policy in the rider’s household, including those issued in other states, for both UM and UIM options.
However, Section 38-77-170 sets out three requirements that all must be met for a claim against an unknown driver. First, the accident must be reported to law enforcement within a reasonable time.
Second, there must be either physical contact with the unknown vehicle, a witness other than the insured who signs an affidavit (or, if not possible, a pre-suit deposition), or a recording of the collision.
Third, the insured must not have been negligent in failing to determine the identity of the other vehicle and driver.
In most struck-from-behind or right-hook cases, the contact requirement is satisfied. But in close-pass, no-contact cases, a claim depends on locating a witness or securing video evidence immediately, as that proof may disappear quickly.
For a visitor, the policy in question may be a household policy written in another state, and whether it responds depends on its language read rather than assumed. The criminal exposure for the driver is significant. Under Section 56-5-1210, leaving the scene carries up to ten years where great bodily injury results and up to twenty-five years where death results.
Camera footage matters more here than anywhere, because it may be the only route to identifying the vehicle. Which agency investigated determines where that evidence is pursued, and Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle Beach, the Highway Patrol, and county fire rescue each hold separate records. The same problem runs through pedestrian claims in this county.
A coastal resort market puts bicycles and vehicles into contact in configurations a commuting town does not produce, and each carries its own question.
Kings Highway (US 17 Business) is the core oceanfront corridor in Myrtle Beach, where street parking, hotel entrances, pedestrian traffic, and cyclists all compress into the same narrow space. Street parking along Kings Highway is what makes dooring a live risk, and hotel and parking deck entrances are where the driveway conflict happens, since a driver emerging from a garage is watching for cross traffic rather than for a rider approaching along the road.
The US 17 Bypass carries the same commercial-entrance problem at higher speed.
Robert M. Grissom Parkway and Harrelson Boulevard draw riders as through routes away from the beachfront, while SC 707 and Farrow Parkway serve the south end toward Market Common and Socastee.
SC 31 (Carolina Bays Parkway) is a 65-mph limited-access route and is not a cycling corridor at all.
Other major arteries include US 501 and SC 22, which connect the city to the region and carry a mix of local and through traffic, but are rarely used by cyclists except at crossings.
Where a bike path or shared path meets a roadway, the transition point is where a rider becomes subject to ordinary traffic rules and a driver's yielding duty attaches. Whether a particular stretch is a roadway, a shared path, or a sidewalk is a question of fact with consequences.
South Carolina Code of Laws § 56-5-3430 (2024) governs roadways and bicycle paths. South Carolina Code of Laws § 56-5-3250 (2024) requires a driver crossing a sidewalk to yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and all other traffic on the sidewalk. That second phrase matters to a cyclist: a rider on the sidewalk is "other traffic," so a driver pulling out of a hotel entrance or parking deck owes the rider the right-of-way, not the other way around.
Group riding adds another layer. A driver overtaking several riders has a safe operating distance obligation to each, and a pass that clears the first rider by an adequate margin may not clear the last.
None of these configurations reduces the driver's duty. What they change is which evidence answers the question, and where the collision falls determines whether the case turns on a passing distance, a yielding obligation, or a sight line from a private entrance.
Does it matter whether I was on a path or a road?
It can. Roadways and bicycle paths are governed by South Carolina Code of Laws § 56-5-3430 (2024). South Carolina Code of Laws § 56-5-3250 (2024) requires a driver crossing a sidewalk to yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and all other traffic on the sidewalk, which includes a cyclist. Which surface you were on when you were struck shapes which duty applies.
A bicycle collision leaves a thinner trail than a two-vehicle crash and a richer one than most people expect, provided someone collects it quickly.
The bicycle itself is evidence and is frequently discarded or returned to a rental company. Damage patterns establish the angle and force of impact, and a frame that has gone cannot be examined later. The same applies to the rider's helmet, clothing, and any equipment carried.
Where a rider recorded, that data is decisive. A handlebar or helmet camera, a cycling computer, or a phone-based tracking application establishes speed and line of travel with a precision no witness can match, and it usually sits on the rider's own device.
Scene evidence behaves as it does in any road case. Vehicle position, debris, sight lines from the driver's approach, and any footage from nearby premises degrade quickly, and business cameras along the main corridors run on retention cycles controlled by whoever owns them.
A cyclist struck by a vehicle absorbs the impact with no structure around them. Clavicle and shoulder injuries, wrist and forearm fractures from bracing, pelvic and lower extremity fractures, head injuries, and extensive abrasion injuries are all common, and many require staged treatment.
The economic side includes emergency care, imaging, surgery, follow-up treatment, therapy, and future care a physician projects, along with the replacement value of the bicycle and equipment. Lost income belongs here, as does lost earning capacity.
South Carolina places no general statutory cap on noneconomic damages in an ordinary injury case, so pain, disfigurement, and the loss of an activity that formed part of someone's life are not limited by statute.
Punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence that the harm resulted from wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct, and the trial is bifurcated on request. South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-32-530 (2024) then sets three tiers. The default cap is the greater of three times compensatory damages or $500,000, a figure the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office adjusts each year for CPI and publishes in the State Register.
The cap rises to the greater of four times compensatory damages or $2,000,000 where the conduct was driven primarily by unreasonable financial gain known to management, or where the defendant’s actions could subject him to a felony conviction that proximately caused the damages. There is no cap at all where the defendant intended to harm, pled guilty to or was convicted of a felony arising from the same conduct, or acted under the influence of alcohol or drugs to the degree that judgment was substantially impaired, all as set forth in South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-32-530 (2024).
An impaired driver typically reaches the second tier on the felony-exposure ground and the third on conviction or impairment, so quoting the base cap alone understates the claim.
Two elements are consistently understated in early offers. Permanent scarring is valued on the eventual result rather than the initial wound. And where a visitor's treatment splits between an emergency department here and providers at home, the reconciliation of that record is work an adjuster will not do on the claimant's behalf.
A fatal cycling collision produces two claims. The wrongful death action compensates the statutory beneficiaries, and the survival action carries forward what the rider suffered before death, with proceeds paid to the estate.
A fatal collision produces two claims with two clocks. The wrongful death action under South Carolina Code of Laws §§ 15-51-10 to 15-51-60 (2024) runs three years from the date of death, which South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-3-530(6) (2024) states expressly.
The survival action is the rider’s own injury claim carried forward by the estate, and it runs on the ordinary three-year personal injury period measured from the injury, not from the death, under South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-3-530(5) (2024) and § 15-3-535 (2024).
Where death follows the collision by a period of treatment, those are two different dates, and the survival claim is the one that expires first. A duly appointed personal representative must bring both, and South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-51-42 (2024) requires court approval of any settlement of either.
The Horry County Coroner's Office maintains a separate file including the cause of death determination, requested separately from the investigating agency's report.
The general deadline is three years from the date of the collision.
Claims against a public body over the roadway itself are narrower than they look. South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-78-60(15) (2024) makes governmental entities immune for the design of highways and other public ways, and immune for the failure to put up a sign or signal in the first place where that decision was discretionary.
What survives is maintenance: a sign, signal, or warning device that was missing, damaged, or malfunctioning and was not corrected within a reasonable time after the entity had actual or constructive notice. That notice history is the case, and it is a records case.
Claims involving a government vehicle, or based on the failure to maintain signage or signals after notice, run two years from the date the loss was or should have been discovered, under South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-78-110 (2024).
That deadline extends to three years only if a verified claim under South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-78-80 (2024) is filed first, and that verified claim must be received within one year of the loss. If the one-year claim window is missed, only the two-year deadline applies. Recovery is capped at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence, and punitive damages are not available against a governmental entity.
A rider hurt on the job has a third-party claim against the driver, and South Carolina Code of Laws § 42-1-560(b) (2024) requires it to be commenced within one year after the compensation carrier accepts liability or makes payment under an award.
If it is not, the claim passes to the carrier by assignment, but not automatically. Under South Carolina Code of Laws § 42-1-560(c) (2024), the carrier must first give written notice by personal service or registered or certified mail, and the assignment cannot take effect until twenty days after that notice. The carrier also holds a lien on any recovery. The employer itself is off limits under the exclusive remedy in South Carolina Code of Laws § 42-1-540 (2024).
Claims by children run longer, tolled during minority under South Carolina Code of Laws § 15-3-40 (2024), though not beyond one year past the eighteenth birthday.
Suit is filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, at the courthouse at 1301 Second Avenue in Conway, with the Clerk of Court at (843) 915-5080 and a second office at 9630 Scipio Lane in Myrtle Beach at (843) 915-5082. Seriously injured riders are transported to Grand Strand Regional Medical Center in Myrtle Beach.
For a visitor, none of that requires residency. A claim arising from a collision in South Carolina proceeds here under South Carolina deadlines regardless of where the rider lives.
A child riding a bicycle is treated differently in two ways that matter.
Section 56-5-3230 requires a driver to exercise due care to avoid a collision with a bicyclist and to exercise proper precaution in observing a child on a roadway. That is a heightened obligation written into the statute rather than an argument built on sympathy, and it reframes the usual claim that a child rode out unexpectedly. The question becomes what the driver did once a child became observable.
Deadlines also run longer, but the law is unsettled on how. Section 15-3-40 tolls the limitation period during minority. Still, it caps the extension at one year after the disability ends, and how that cap interacts with the ordinary three-year period is not settled in a way anyone should rely on. Treat the earliest arguable date as the deadline, not the latest. Section 15-3-40 also applies to Tort Claims Act deadlines. In practice, the evidence in a cycling case is gone long before any of these dates.
Does the law treat a child cyclist differently?
Yes. Section 56-5-3230 requires a driver to exercise proper precaution when observing a child on a roadway, and a child's claim runs on a longer deadline than an adult's.
Where a marked bicycle lane runs alongside the roadway, Section 56-5-3425 requires a rider to use it, except when passing another cyclist or avoiding an obstruction in the lane. If only an adjacent recreational path exists, a rider may remain on the roadway. The statute also prohibits motorists from blocking the bike lane and requires them to yield to cyclists before entering or crossing it. Thus, whether a cyclist must use the lane depends on whether one exists and whether an exception applies.
South Carolina requires a driver to maintain a safe operating distance under Section 56-5-3435. What is safe depends on the circumstances, including lane width and speed.
South Carolina imposes no statewide bicycle helmet requirement. Article 27 of Chapter 5, which governs bicycles, contains no helmet provision, so not wearing one is not a violation of any statute and cannot be negligence per se. The seat belt statute’s protection does not carry over: Section 56-5-6540(C) bars evidence of nonuse, but by its own terms it applies only to the seat belt article. Whether an insurer can argue helmet nonuse on damages is therefore a case-specific question, and local ordinances should be checked.
Uninsured motorist coverage is mandatory in South Carolina. If the at-fault driver is unidentified, you must report the crash promptly to police. You must have either physical contact with the vehicle, a witness affidavit, or a video recording of the incident. You can’t have been negligent in failing to identify the other vehicle or driver. In no-contact close pass cases, your claim depends on quickly finding a witness or securing a recording.
Nothing up front. Consultations are free, and the fee is contingent on recovery.
The Arndt Law Firm starts a cycling claim by establishing which collision pattern occurred, because a right hook, a left cross, a dooring, and an unsafe pass are four different cases built from four different sets of evidence.
Securing the bicycle comes next, and in this market that often means intervening before a rental company takes it back, since the frame carries the physical record of the impact. Horry County claims are filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Conway. Attorney Jonathan S. Arndt has been licensed in South Carolina since 2018 and reviews the firm's cyclist matters.
Assessing a rider's claim costs nothing, and the fee depends entirely on a recovery. You can reach the firm through the contact page. A damaged bicycle is often disposed of or returned within days, and once it is gone, the physical record of the impact goes with it.
Last reviewed: August 2026
This page was reviewed by Jonathan S. Arndt, licensed in South Carolina since 2018.
Content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed South Carolina attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
