At our firm, we understand how devastating a burn injury can be, not just for the person hurt, but for their entire family. Whether the injury happened in a rental, hotel, or resort property in Myrtle Beach, you’re likely facing a confusing mix of medical bills, insurance questions, and uncertainty about what comes next. Our team is here to help you find clarity and a path forward.
We bring years of experience handling premises liability and personal injury cases throughout Myrtle Beach and the Grand Strand. We know the local laws, the unique challenges posed by short-term rentals and multi-unit properties, and the tactics insurance companies use to limit your recovery. Our approach is hands-on and detail-oriented: we investigate every aspect of your case, from the conditions that caused the injury to the parties who may be responsible, so nothing gets overlooked.
Burn injuries often require specialized treatment and long-term care. We work closely with doctors and experts to understand the full impact on your health, livelihood, and quality of life. Our team is committed to pursuing every dollar of compensation you deserve, whether through negotiation or, if necessary, taking your case to trial.
If you or a loved one suffered a burn injury in Myrtle Beach, don’t wait to get answers or protect your rights. Contact our team today for a free, confidential consultation; we’re ready to listen and help you move forward.
Thermal burns come from flame, hot surfaces, and hot liquids. A scald from a water system set too high points at whoever controlled that system. A flash fire from a gas appliance points at an installer, a maintenance contractor, or the manufacturer.
Electrical burns point at whoever was responsible for the wiring, the equipment, or the energized line, which can mean a contractor, a building owner, a utility, or an equipment manufacturer. Those injuries are frequently worse than they look at the surface, because current travels through tissue between entry and exit points.
Chemical burns point at the manufacturer of the substance, the business that stored it, and whoever was responsible for labeling and handling. Pool chemical injuries belong here and recur in a market full of pools, as do commercial cleaning products used during turnover.
Vehicle fire burns sit in a category of their own, combining an ordinary collision claim against a driver with a potential product claim against a manufacturer over fuel system design. Those two claims run alongside each other rather than one replacing the other.
Why does the type of burn matter legally?
Because the mechanism identifies the defendant and the body of law. A scald points at whoever controlled the water system, an electrical burn at whoever controlled the equipment or the line, a chemical burn at a manufacturer or the business that stored it, and a vehicle fire at both a driver and potentially a manufacturer.
Where a product caused the burn, South Carolina applies law that does not require proof of carelessness at all.
Section 15-73-10 provides that one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm caused, where the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and where it is expected to and does reach the user without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
The next provision is the one people do not expect. The rule applies although the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product, and although the user has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. A manufacturer that did everything right can still be liable, and a hotel guest who never bought the appliance can still sue its maker.
There is a corresponding limit. Section 15-73-20 provides that a user who discovers the defect, is aware of the danger, and nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product is barred from recovery. That is a genuine bar rather than a percentage reduction, and it is narrower than ordinary comparative fault because it requires actual discovery and awareness.
South Carolina also incorporates the comments to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts by reference as the legislative intent of the chapter. Hence, the interpretive framework is broader than the statutory text alone.
Where the burn happened on premises rather than from a product, the claim runs through the property framework, and in this market that framework has an extra layer.
Short-term rentals in Myrtle Beach are regulated as visitor accommodations, defined as a living unit or other accommodation furnished, rented, leased, or sub-leased for any period less than ninety continuous days, and the ordinance states outright that a visitor accommodation is a commercial use.
The city allows visitor accommodations by right only in a defined set of districts: RMV, MU-H, C6, and the amusement, entertainment, and highway commercial districts, and by special exception in the interim redevelopment district. They are not allowed in any single-family or other multi-family residential district, and not in several commercial districts either, including downtown commercial and medical/professional.
Ninety days is also where state law draws the line, so a guest at a Myrtle Beach rental is a transient rather than a tenant, and the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act does not reach the stay at all. This matches the threshold in Section 12-36-920(A) and Section 27-40-120(4) of the South Carolina Code; there is no thirty-day line in South Carolina law for these purposes.
The city has also adopted a Short-Term Rental Conversion (STRC) Overlay Zone, Ordinance No. 2024-69, adopted December 10, 2024. In the strip between Kings Highway and the Atlantic Ocean, it bars buildings of more than two units that were built or used as visitor accommodations from being rented for ninety continuous days or more, with an exception for units already licensed for long-term rental when it was adopted. Its stated purpose is preserving tourist accommodations on the oceanfront.
South Carolina recognizes four classifications of people who come onto premises: adult trespassers, invitees, licensees, and children, each owed a different standard of care. Sims v. Giles, 343 S.C. 708, 541 S.E.2d 857 (Ct. App. 2000). A paying guest at a hotel, resort, or rental is an invitee, owed reasonable or ordinary care for their safety, including a warning of latent dangers the occupier knew of or should have discovered.
The landowner has a duty to warn an invitee only of latent or hidden dangers of which the landowner has knowledge or should have knowledge. A water heater set too hot, a faulty outlet, a gas connection, or a missing detector is exactly the kind of latent condition a guest cannot inspect.
A caution about the case law: Sims contains, in a footnote, a sentence stating that the licensee and invitee distinction "is hereby abolished," but the court is quoting West Virginia's decision in Mallet v. Pickens, and the South Carolina court's own parenthetical notes that South Carolina is not among the jurisdictions that abolished the distinction. South Carolina retained the categories and continues to apply them.
The extra layer is control. In a condominium or resort building the association typically controls building systems in the common elements while a unit owner controls the interior, and a management company or operator may control maintenance for particular units. Hot water is frequently a building system rather than a unit system, which puts a scald claim with the association rather than with the owner whose name is on the deed. That analysis is set out in the premises liability discussion.
Where the burn arose from how a building was constructed rather than how it was maintained, a contractor, subcontractor, or design professional may be involved, and a separate deadline applies.
Who is responsible for a scald from a hotel or condo water system?
Usually whoever controlled that system, which in a building with multiple units is often the association or the operator rather than an individual unit owner; the governing documents and management agreements establish the boundary.
A hospitality economy concentrates burn risk in equipment operated by businesses rather than households, and that changes both the defendant and the available insurance.
Commercial kitchens produce fryer, steam, grill, and scald injuries to workers and occasionally to customers. The recurring questions are equipment condition, guarding, maintenance history, and whether a known defect was reported and left unaddressed.
Pool chemical handling produces chemical burns and respiratory injuries, and the questions are storage, labeling, ventilation, training, and whether a service contractor or in-house staff handled the chemicals. Safety data sheets are documentary and obtainable.
Laundry and housekeeping operations produce scald and chemical injuries during turnover. Fire pits, grills, and outdoor heaters at restaurants and rentals produce thermal burns with questions about placement, guarding, and supervision.
In each of these, the business carries commercial coverage well above a residential policy, and the equipment manufacturer may be a separate defendant with separate coverage under Section 15-73-10.
A large share of serious burns are work injuries, and the structure of the claim changes accordingly.
Section 42-1-540 provides that the rights and remedies under the workers' compensation title exclude all other rights and remedies against the employer, at common law or otherwise. The employer is generally unavailable as a negligence defendant no matter how clearly it was at fault.
The same section carries a carve-out routinely omitted. The limitation does not apply to injuries resulting from acts of a subcontractor of the employer, and it does not bar an action by an employee of one subcontractor against another subcontractor where a common employer hired both. On a property serviced by several contractors, that language frequently determines whether a claim exists.
What otherwise survives is the third-party claim: the manufacturer of the equipment, another contractor, the property owner, the association, or the supplier of a chemical. That claim carries a shorter deadline. Under Section 42-1-560, it must be commenced within one year after the compensation carrier accepts liability or makes payment. After that, the right of action passes to the carrier following written notice and twenty days. The carrier also holds an interest in any recovery from the third-party claim.
The single most important step is preserving the thing that caused the injury. A product claim without the product is far harder, and appliances, heaters, wiring, tools, and containers are routinely discarded, repaired, or returned to a manufacturer for inspection before anyone objects.
Fire investigation reports come next. Where a fire department or fire marshal investigated, that file contains origin and cause analysis that would cost a great deal to reproduce. Inside the Myrtle Beach city limits, the responding agency is the Myrtle Beach Fire Department. In the unincorporated Grand Strand, Socastee, Carolina Forest, and other areas outside the city, it is Horry County Fire Rescue, which also provides EMS county-wide.
The investigating law enforcement agency depends on location: Myrtle Beach Police Department inside the city, North Myrtle Beach Police Department in that city, and the South Carolina Highway Patrol on the highways and in the unincorporated county.
Other records include maintenance and inspection history for the equipment or building, product recall and complaint history, safety data sheets for a chemical, code enforcement history, and employer safety documentation where the burn happened at work. In a building where different people are the owners of the units, those sit in more than one place, and requests go to each.
Photographs of the injury over time carry unusual weight, because appearance changes substantially through healing and grafting, and a record taken throughout tells a story a final examination cannot.
Should I keep the item that caused the burn?
Yes, preserving the product, appliance, or container is often the difference between a viable product claim and an unprovable one. Do not return it to a manufacturer or a business for inspection without advice.
A person injured in a rental, hotel, or resort premises or by a defective product may recover for:
Where a host, association, or other defendant knew about a dangerous condition and ignored it, punitive damages are also available on clear and convincing evidence. They are capped at the greater of three times compensatory damages or $500,000, with the cap lifted for intoxication, felony conduct, or intent to harm. Punitive damages are never available against a governmental entity. S.C. Code Sections 15-32-520, 15-32-530, 15-78-120(b).
Burn injuries are among the most expensive to treat and the slowest to resolve. Serious burns involve staged surgery, grafting, extended wound care, infection risk, and contracture release procedures that can continue for years, particularly across joints.
The economic side includes acute treatment, reconstructive procedures, therapy, adaptive equipment, and future care a physician projects rather than a bill that already exists. Lost earning capacity is frequently significant, since burns to the hands, arms, or face can end a person's ability to do the work they trained for.
The noneconomic side covers pain, which in burn treatment is prolonged and severe, along with permanent scarring and disfigurement. South Carolina places no general statutory cap on noneconomic damages in an ordinary injury case. The cap in the code applies to medical malpractice claims and does not reach a product, premises, or vehicle fire claim.
Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct. The statutory cap rises where conduct was motivated primarily by unreasonable financial gain known to a managing agent, or where it could subject a defendant to a felony conviction, and it is removed entirely where a defendant acted while impaired to the degree that judgment was substantially impaired.
An offer made before the reconstructive picture settles is an offer to resolve a claim before anyone knows its size.
| Mechanism | Likely defendant | Governing framework |
|---|---|---|
| Scald from a building water system | Association, operator, or unit owner depending on control | Premises, invitee duty |
| Appliance or gas flash fire | Manufacturer, installer, maintenance contractor | Product liability, Section 15-73-10 |
| Electrical contact | Contractor, building owner, utility, equipment maker | Premises or product, depending on control |
| Pool or cleaning chemical | Manufacturer, business storing it, service contractor | Product liability and premises |
| Commercial kitchen equipment | Employer's third party, equipment maker | Third party claim plus product liability |
In a serious burn case, the treatment already received is frequently the smaller half of the loss. What determines value is what still lies ahead, and that has to be established rather than estimated.
Future care in burn injuries is unusually predictable in kind and unusually long in duration. Scar revision and contracture release procedures recur, particularly where a burn crosses a joint and restricts movement as it heals. Pressure garments, splinting, and therapy continue for extended periods. Skin over a graft behaves differently and needs ongoing management, and children who are burned face procedures repeated through growth.
Establishing that is medical work rather than argument. It rests on the treating physician's opinion about what is likely to be required, and in larger cases on a written plan setting out each anticipated item, its frequency, and its cost. Where earning capacity is affected, the analysis reaches what the person can now do rather than what they earned before.
This is why timing matters so much in burn claims. An offer made while grafting is ongoing is an offer made before anyone can describe the eventual result, and a release cannot be reopened when a further revision procedure becomes necessary. The scarring component in particular is valued on the final appearance and function rather than on the initial wound.
Photographic documentation through the whole course supports all of it, because the difference between the acute injury, the post-graft appearance, and the settled result is not something a final examination can y.
Why should a burn claim not settle quickly?
Because the largest components, future procedures and permanent scarring, cannot be valued until the treatment course is clear. Scar revision and contracture release can continue for years, and a release signed early cannot be reopened.
An injured guest recovers as long as their share of the fault is not greater than the defendant's, and where more than one defendant is involved, the guest's share is compared to the combined fault of all of them. The award is reduced by the guest's percentage and barred at 51 percent. Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991). That rule is common law rather than statutory.
Joint and several liability matters when there are multiple defendants. A defendant less than fifty percent at fault pays only its own share. A defendant at fifty percent or more can be made to pay the whole verdict. For injuries after January 1, 2026, a defendant whose conduct was willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional is jointly and severally liable for all damages regardless of percentage. S.C. Code Section 15-38-15.
A product claim carries a feature worth knowing. For injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2026, a defendant in most South Carolina injury cases may ask that a person who was never sued be placed on the verdict form and assigned a share of the fault, but only if that person is disclosed within 180 days of the start of the action, and the plaintiff may then add that person as a defendant with the amendment relating back to the start of the case.
This mechanism applies only to causes of action arising or accruing after January 1, 2026. Injuries before that date are governed by the prior statute, which has no such mechanism. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-38-15(H)(4) (2026) provides that a nondefendant is not added where the causes of action involve strict liability, which reaches a product claim brought under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-73-10 (2026).
A burn case with both a negligence claim and a product claim can therefore be governed differently depending on which theory is being tried, which is a reason to plead deliberately rather than broadly.
The general deadline is three years from the date of injury. Where the injury was not apparent at the time, the same three years runs from when the person knew or by reasonable diligence should have known that a cause of action existed.
Where the injury resulted from how the property was built rather than how it was maintained, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-640 (2026) bars an action based on the defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property more than eight years after substantial completion. That bar protects designers, builders, and remote owners.
S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-670(A) (2026) takes it away from anyone in actual possession or control of the property, such as an owner, tenant, or manager, who knew or reasonably should have known of the condition, and from anyone guilty of fraud, gross negligence, recklessness, or concealment. Against the host, the association, or the management company, the age of the building is frequently not an answer. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-670(B) (2026) clarifies that a building code violation is not per se gross negligence but is admissible as evidence of it.
A claim against a government defendant runs for two years under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (2026), measured from when the loss was or should have been discovered. The deadline extends to three years only if a verified claim was filed with the responsible agency or political subdivision and received within one year of the loss. Recovery is capped at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence, and punitive damages or prejudgment interest are not available against a governmental entity. A workers' compensation third party claim runs one year.
The limitations period is tolled while the injured person is under eighteen. How that tolling is computed for a minor is not fully settled, and the safe assumption is that the action must be brought within one year after the eighteenth birthday. Any claim approaching that date should be treated as urgent rather than assumed to run longer. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-40 (2026).
A parent's own claim is different. The medical bills a parent paid and the services they lost belong to the parent, not to the child, and they run on the ordinary three-year clock from the date of injury.
Where a guest died, the personal representative brings the wrongful death claim and the three years runs from the date of death rather than the date of the injury. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(6) (2026); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-51-10 et seq. (2026). The survival claim also runs three years from the date of death. The wrongful death analysis covers that sequence.
A suit is filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, with the Clerk of Court at the courthouse at 1301 Second Avenue in Conway, (843) 915-5080, and the Common Pleas division reached directly at (843) 915-5083. The county also operates a Clerk of Court extension office at the South Strand complex, 9630 Scipio Lane in Myrtle Beach, (843) 915-5082, co-located with the South Strand magistrate court.
Seriously injured guests are transported to Grand Strand Medical Center at 809 82nd Parkway in Myrtle Beach, the only Level I adult trauma center and Level II pediatric trauma center in Horry and Georgetown counties. Conway Medical Center at 300 Singleton Ridge Road in Conway also serves the area.
Specialized burn treatment frequently requires transfer beyond the initial receiving facility, which means the medical record spans multiple institutions and sometimes more than one state. Assembling it takes longer than a single hospital file, and the requests are worth making as soon as the claim allows.
No, under Section 15-73-10, the rule applies even where the seller exercised all possible care, and even where you never bought the product from that seller.
Section 15-73-20 bars recovery where a user discovers the defect, is aware of the danger, and nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to use the product. That requires actual discovery and awareness.
It depends on who controlled the system or equipment involved, which in a building with multiple units may be an association or an operator rather than a unit owner.
A third-party claim must be commenced within one year of the compensation carrier accepting liability or making payment, which is shorter than the general three-year deadline.
Nothing up front. Consultations are free, and the fee is contingent on recovery.
The Arndt Law Firm works a burn claim from the mechanism outward, because how someone was burned identifies who can be held responsible and which body of law applies. A scald, an electrical contact, and a chemical exposure are three different investigations with three different sets of records.
Preservation is the first practical step, since the product or appliance that caused the injury is physical evidence and is routinely discarded or sent back to a manufacturer before anyone objects.
In a multi owner building the firm also establishes who controlled the system involved, because that answer decides which insurer is on the claim. Horry County matters 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 burn matters.
Discussing what happened costs nothing, and a fee arises only from a recovery. You can reach the firm through the contact page. Where a burn happened at work, the third-party deadline can run a year from the compensation carrier's first payment, which is considerably shorter than most people are told.
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.
