Burn injuries in Orangeburg can happen where people least expect them, along the industrial corridors near US-301, inside local manufacturing and chemical facilities, or in kitchen and workplace accidents across the county.
South Carolina holds the seller of a defective product liable even where that seller exercised all possible care, and even where the injured person never bought anything from them. In a county where burns come out of farms and equipment more often than out of kitchens, that rule decides a great many cases.
The Arndt Law Firm represents burn injury victims across Orangeburg County. The state gives burn victims the right to pursue compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and long-term scarring, but insurance companies rarely make that process easy.
Our firm can help you secure the recovery that may be available to you under the law. Call (843) 310-4645 for a free case review.
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 or a fuel source points at an installer, a maintenance contractor, or a manufacturer.
Electrical burns point at whoever was responsible for the wiring, the equipment, or the energized line, which can mean a contractor, a property owner, a utility, or an equipment manufacturer. Those injuries are usually 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 or operation that stored it, and whoever was responsible for labeling and handling. Anhydrous ammonia, fertilizers, pesticides, and industrial cleaning agents all belong in this category, and each carries a safety data sheet that is documentary rather than argumentative.
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.
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, and a chemical burn at a manufacturer or the operation that stored the substance.
When a product caused the burn, South Carolina applies law that does not require proof of carelessness at all.
S.C. Code § 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 even if the seller has exercised all possible care in preparing and selling the product, and even if the user has not bought the product from the seller or entered into any contractual relationship with the seller.
A manufacturer that did everything right can still be liable, and a worker who never bought the machine can still sue its maker. For a manufacturing flaw, the seller's care is no defense. For a design claim, South Carolina requires showing a feasible safer alternative design under a risk-utility test.
There is a corresponding limit. S.C. Code § 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.
A county with manufacturing, processing, and farming concentrates burn risk in equipment operated by businesses rather than households, and that changes both the defendant and the available insurance.
Industrial process equipment produces steam, hot surfaces, molten material, and flash fire injuries. The recurring questions are equipment condition, guarding, maintenance history, lockout procedures, and whether a known defect was reported and left unaddressed.
Chemical handling can cause burns and respiratory injuries, and the key questions are storage, labeling, ventilation, personal protective equipment, and training. When a substance was supplied by a manufacturer with inadequate warnings, that is a product claim under § 15-73-10 alongside any premises theory.
Agricultural operations introduce their own hazards: fuel and equipment fires, grain-drying and processing equipment, chemical application, and electrical contact with irrigation and grain-handling machinery.
In each of these, the business carries commercial coverage well above that of a residential policy, and the equipment manufacturer may be a separate defendant with its own coverage.
Where the burn occurred on the premises rather than from a product, the claim runs under the property framework. South Carolina recognizes four classifications of people who come onto premises, and a business guest is an invitee, owed reasonable care, including a warning of latent dangers the occupier knew of or should have discovered.
A water heater set too hot, a faulty outlet, a gas connection, or a missing detector is exactly the kind of latent condition a visitor cannot inspect.
On rural and agricultural land, the classification question is sharper than in a store, and it frequently decides the claim. Whether a person was an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser is determined by why they were present rather than by where they were standing, and the premises liability analysis sets out the framework.
Renting a home brings up some key questions about the landlord's responsibilities. The water heater temperature is something a tenant can't set or check themselves. Whether smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors are there and working needs to be written down and proven. And electrical systems in older buildings round out the list of things landlords may be responsible for.
When 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.
A landlord is not automatically responsible. Liability usually turns on whether the landlord was told about the problem and failed to fix it as required by the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, or made repairs carelessly.
A large share of serious burns are work injuries, and the structure of the claim changes accordingly.
S.C. Code § 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 defendant in negligence, 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 by the employer's subcontractor, and it does not bar an action by an employee of one subcontractor against another subcontractor when both were hired by a common employer. On a plant or a farm 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, or the supplier of a chemical. That claim carries a shorter deadline.
Under S.C. Code § 42-1-560, it must be commenced within one year after the compensation carrier accepts liability or makes payment, after which the right of action passes to the carrier following written notice and twenty days. The carrier also holds an interest in what the third-party claim recovers.
A property owner or general contractor may be treated as a 'statutory employer' when the work was part of its own business, and is then protected from suit the same way the employer is. Whether a given owner or contractor can be sued depends on that relationship.
The most important step is preserving the thing that caused the injury. A product claim without the product is far harder, and machinery, appliances, wiring, tools, and containers are routinely repaired, returned to a manufacturer for inspection, or put back into service before anyone objects.
That risk is higher in an industrial setting than a domestic one, because production pressure pushes toward getting equipment running again. An immediate written preservation demand is what interrupts it.
Fire investigation reports come next. When a fire department or fire marshal investigates, the resulting file contains origin and cause analysis that would cost a great deal to reproduce.
The investigating law enforcement agency depends on location: the South Carolina Highway Patrol on state and federal highways and in unincorporated areas; the City of Orangeburg's Department of Public Safety within the city; and the Sheriff's Office within the county.
Other records include maintenance and inspection history, product recall and complaint history, safety data sheets for a chemical, code enforcement history, and employer safety documentation where the burn happened at work.
Photographs of the injury over time carry unusual weight because the appearance changes substantially through healing and grafting.
Not without advice. Preserving the equipment, appliance, or container is often the difference between a viable product claim and an unprovable one, and returning it for inspection can compromise that.
Serious burns require treatment that is not available everywhere, and that has practical consequences for the record a claim depends on.
Seriously injured people from this area are commonly transported to MUSC Orangeburg, an adult Level III trauma center located at 3000 St. Matthews Rd. Serious burns may require transfer to a dedicated burn center. The transfer may mean the medical record spans multiple institutions and sometimes more than one region.
In such cases, records requests have to go to each facility separately, and each runs on its own timetable. And the treatment history that establishes the extent of the injury, the grafting course, and the projected future care is spread across multiple places, which takes longer to assemble than a single hospital file.
Distance also affects the family. Extended treatment away from home entails travel and accommodation costs, as well as time away from work for relatives. These are recoverable components rather than incidental burdens.
An injured person recovers as long as their share of the fault is not greater than the defendant's, with the award reduced by that percentage and barred at 51 percent, under Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991).
For claims arising or accruing after January 1, 2026, a defendant in most South Carolina injury cases may ask that a party who was never sued be placed on the verdict form and assigned a share of the fault. S.C. Code § 15-38-15(H)(4) provides that a nondefendant is not added where the causes of action involve strict liability, which reaches a product claim brought under § 15-73-10.
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.
| Mechanism | Likely defendant | Governing framework |
|---|---|---|
| Industrial process equipment | Employer's third party, equipment maker | Third-party claim plus product liability |
| Chemical exposure | Manufacturer, operation storing it, supplier | Product liability and premises |
| Agricultural equipment or fuel fire | Manufacturer, maintenance contractor, landowner | Product liability and premises |
| Scald from a building water system | Landlord or whoever controlled the system | Premises, invitee or tenant duty |
| Electrical contact | Contractor, property owner, utility, equipment maker | Premises or product, depending on control |
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 of the claim includes acute treatment, reconstructive procedures, therapy, adaptive equipment, and future care that a physician projects rather than a bill that already exists. Lost earning capacity can be significant, and in a county where a large share of work is physical, 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.
Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct. These damages are generally capped at the greater of three times compensatory damages or $500,000, and at four times or $2 million for financially motivated conduct known to a managing agent or conduct that could bring a felony conviction. There is no cap where the defendant intended harm, was convicted of a felony for the act, or was impaired by alcohol or drugs. The dollar figures are adjusted for inflation.
An offer made before the reconstructive picture settles is an offer to resolve a claim before anyone knows its size.
The general filing deadline is three years from the date of injury. Where the injury was not apparent at the time, the same three years run from when the person knew or by reasonable diligence should have known that a cause of action existed.
Where the burn arose from the construction of a building rather than its upkeep, S.C. Code § 15-3-640 generally bars claims over a defective improvement more than eight years after substantial completion. The owner or occupant in control who knew or should have known of the condition cannot use that bar.
A claim against a government defendant must be brought within two years. That becomes three years only if a verified claim is filed and received within one year of when the loss was or should have been discovered. Government claims are also capped at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence, with no punitive damages.
A workers' compensation third-party claim runs one year. Deadlines for children's claims are extended during minority under S.C. Code § 15-3-40, subject to statutory limits. Because the calculation is disputed, a child's deadline should be confirmed early.
A wrongful death claim runs three years from the date of death. The survival claim, which is the injured person's own claim, runs on the original injury clock, so where death came well after the burn, that deadline may be earlier. Both are brought by the personal representative.
Suit is filed in the Court of Common Pleas, which sits in the First Judicial Circuit. The Orangeburg County Clerk of Court processes civil actions where the demand or the value of the property involved exceeds $7,500.
A settlement for a minor has to be formally filed with the court on a set schedule. This is important in many burn injury cases because children make up a disproportionately large share of scald and contact burn victims, and their cases are often the ones that stay open the longest, since future medical care needs have to be accounted for.
Burns in rented housing recur in a pattern, and responsibility usually sits with the party that controls the building systems rather than the person living in it.
Water heater temperature is a clear example. A thermostat set high enough to scald is a condition of the plumbing system rather than of the tenant's conduct, and scald injuries to children and older adults result directly from it.
Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors raise a related question. Whether required devices were present, functional, and appropriately placed is documentary rather than argumentative, and a landlord's own maintenance and inspection records address it.
Electrical systems in older housing, gas and propane connections, and heating equipment complete the list. Where a home is heated by a wood stove, a space heater, or an older furnace, the questions are installation, clearance, maintenance, and what the landlord knew.
Each of those is a system that the occupant cannot inspect and did not install, which is why the duty framework applies to conditions a landowner should have discovered, rather than only those actually known.
Not automatically, but when the landlord controlled the system and the temperature setting created a hazard the tenant could not inspect, that falls within the duty to address conditions a landowner knew of or should have discovered.
No. Under S.C. Code § 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.
S.C. Code § 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.
Not usually the employer, because workers' compensation is generally the exclusive remedy. A third-party claim against an equipment manufacturer, a chemical supplier, or another contractor may exist, and it must be commenced within one year of the carrier accepting liability or paying benefits.
Grafting, scar revision, and contracture release can continue for years, and the scarring component is valued on the final result rather than the initial wound.
Nothing up front. Consultations are free, and the fee is contingent on recovery.
The Arndt Law Firm starts by examining exactly how our client was burned, because that determines who's at fault and which laws apply. A burn from hot steam at a factory, a chemical burn, and an electrical burn are three completely different cases, each requiring its own investigation and set of records.
The first thing we do is preserve the equipment involved, and in a workplace setting, this needs to happen quickly because there's often pressure to get the machine repaired and running again, which can destroy evidence.
Attorney Jonathan S. Arndt has been licensed in South Carolina since 2018 and oversees our firm's burn injury cases. Contact us for a case review. Talking with us about your case costs nothing, and you only pay a fee if we win your case.
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.
