A serious burn can change your life in seconds, leaving you facing painful treatment, surgeries, scarring, and a long recovery. In Spartanburg, these injuries can arise from apartment fires, defective products, vehicle crashes on I-85 or I-26, or hazards in the area’s manufacturing workplaces.
When a burn results from another party's negligence, South Carolina law may allow a claim for the full extent of the harm.
The Arndt Law Firm has experience handling burn injury claims and represents victims throughout Spartanburg and Spartanburg County. We can build a case by carefully establishing how your injury occurred and who was responsible and help you recover for medical expenses, lost income, pain, and other lasting harm. Call us (843) 310-4645 today for a free consultation.
Burn injuries arise from many sources, and identifying the cause is the first step in establishing who is responsible. Fires and explosions, whether in a building, a vehicle, or from a gas leak, are a leading cause of severe burns. They can involve questions of property maintenance, code compliance, or defective equipment.
Apartment and rental fires caused by faulty wiring, missing or non-functional smoke detectors, or other landlord failures are a recurring source of serious burns. Car accidents in Spartanburg may also produce burns when a fuel system fails or a fire results from the collision. Crash fires in Spartanburg County may cluster on the corridors that carry the volume: I-85, I-26, US-29, and US-176.
Scald and contact burns are common in other settings. Defective water heaters, scalding tap water, hot surfaces, and industrial equipment cause burns when they are not properly maintained or guarded, and these can arise on property where an owner failed to address a known hazard.
Chemical burns result from exposure to caustic substances, sometimes through defective products or inadequate warnings, and electrical burns result from contact with faulty wiring, exposed conductors, or unsafe equipment, each of which points to a different responsible party and a different body of law.
A burn from a defective product implicates the manufacturer, a burn on poorly maintained property implicates the owner under premises liability law, and a burn in a crash implicates the at-fault driver and potentially a vehicle manufacturer. The precise cause and mechanism of the burn may point to the potentially liable person or entity and affect how the claim should be built.
This is why a burn case begins with a careful reconstruction of how the injury happened, sometimes before the question of who pays is addressed. A fire that appears at first to be accidental may, on investigation, be traced to faulty wiring a landlord failed to repair, a defective appliance, or a code violation, each pointing to a different responsible party. A scald that seems like a simple misfortune may result from a water heater set dangerously high in a rental unit.
The cause investigation requires specialized expertise, because the origin of a fire or the nature of a product defect is not always apparent from the surface. Fire-origin investigators can examine a fire scene to determine where and how a fire started, distinguishing an electrical fault from a careless act from a defective appliance, and engineers can analyze a failed product to establish a defect.
This kind of investigation can transform the understanding of a burn injury, turning what looked like an unavoidable accident into a clear case of a landlord's neglect, a manufacturer's defective product, or another party's failure. Because the physical evidence that supports this investigation, the fire scene, the failed product, and the damaged wiring, can be lost or altered quickly, an early investigation can help strengthen a serious burn case.
It frequently determines whether the responsible party can be identified at all. The scene of a fire is often cleared, repaired, or demolished within a short time, and a failed product may be discarded by someone who does not realize its importance, so moving quickly to secure and examine this evidence can help prove a claim.
Burns are classified by depth and extent, and the classification drives both the medical treatment and the value of a claim. First-degree burns affect only the outer layer of skin; second-degree burns extend deeper and cause blistering; third-degree burns destroy the full thickness of the skin; and fourth-degree burns reach into muscle and bone.
The percentage of body surface area affected, along with the location and depth, determines the severity of the injury and the intensity of care required. The distinction between these degrees has real consequences for treatment and for the claim.
A superficial burn may heal on its own with minimal intervention, while a deep partial-thickness or full-thickness burn destroys the skin's ability to heal itself and requires surgical treatment, including the removal of dead tissue and skin grafting to close the wound. A burn that reaches into muscle, bone, or other deep structures can threaten the affected limb and require the most extensive reconstructive surgery.
Because the depth of a burn determines the kind of care it demands and the permanence of its consequences, the medical classification is a starting point for understanding both the survivor's road ahead and the value of the claim. The records that document the depth and extent of the burns are key evidence in the case.
Severe burns are among the most painful and medically complex injuries, usually requiring treatment in a specialized setting. Serious burns in the Spartanburg area are first treated at Spartanburg Medical Center, an ACS-verified Level I trauma center. The most severe burns are typically stabilized and then transferred to a verified burn center, which in South Carolina means MUSC Health's South Carolina Burn Center in Charleston.
That transfer, and the travel and extended out-of-area stay it requires, is part of the cost of a catastrophic burn. Treatment may involve multiple surgeries, skin grafts, intensive wound care, and a prolonged hospital stay, followed by months or years of rehabilitation.
The consequences of a serious burn extend beyond the initial injury. Burns commonly leave permanent scarring and disfigurement, can cause lasting loss of function and mobility, and carry a significant risk of infection and other complications during recovery.
The physical and psychological toll, including chronic pain and the emotional impact of disfigurement, makes a serious burn one of the most life-altering injuries. A complete claim has to account for all of these dimensions rather than treating the injury as a wound that simply heals.
The extent and location of a burn matter as much as its depth in shaping both treatment and the claim. A deep burn over a large percentage of the body surface can be life-threatening and may require intensive care, while burns to the hands, face, joints, or other functionally and cosmetically important areas can have consequences disproportionate to their size.
Burns to the airway from inhaling hot gases or smoke add a dangerous internal dimension that may not be visible at all. Because the medical severity of a burn is measured along several axes at once, documenting each is important both to the survivor's care and to establishing the full scope of the harm.
South Carolina's modified comparative negligence rule applies to burn injury claims, allowing recovery as long as the injured person was 50 percent or less at fault, reducing the recovery by their percentage, and barring it at 51 percent or more. The rule comes from case law, not statute: Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991). A separate statute, S.C. Code § 15-38-15, governs how fault is apportioned among multiple defendants.
As in any personal injury case, the responsible party's insurer will look for grounds to assign fault to the injured person and reduce the recovery. The fault analysis in a burn case depends heavily on the cause.
When a defective product caused the burn, the focus is on the manufacturer's responsibility. In a negligence claim, the recovery is reduced by the injured person's share of fault. A strict liability claim against a manufacturer runs on a different track: the statutory defense is narrow, and the question is whether the product was unreasonably dangerous, not whether the user was perfectly careful (S.C. Code § 15-73-20).
When a burn occurred on property, the premises analysis of duty and notice applies. Whether a property owner is liable depends on why the injured person was there and on notice: the claim generally requires showing the owner knew or should have known about the hazard, such as a tenant's prior complaints about wiring, and failed to fix it.
When a crash caused the burn, the ordinary fault analysis of the collision governs. Matching the fault framework to the cause is part of building the claim correctly.
The evidence of how the burn occurred, the condition of the product or property, and the injured person's reasonable conduct all bear on the allocation of fault, and developing those facts protects the recovery from being unfairly reduced.
Burn injuries generate some of the most serious damages in personal injury law because of the intensity and duration of the care they require. Economic damages cover the substantial medical costs, including emergency treatment, surgeries, skin grafts, hospitalization, and the extensive future care that serious burns demand, along with lost wages and reduced or destroyed earning capacity when the injury prevents a return to work. For a severe burn, the future medical costs alone can be enormous.
Non-economic damages are particularly significant in burn cases. Burns cause severe pain, and they frequently leave permanent scarring and disfigurement that affect a person's appearance, function, and sense of self, losses the law recognizes as real and compensable. The disfigurement and the emotional and psychological impact of a serious burn, including the effect on relationships and quality of life, are central elements of a burn claim rather than afterthoughts.
When the conduct that caused the burn was reckless, punitive damages may be available. Punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence of wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct (S.C. Code § 15-32-520).
They are capped at the greater of three times compensatory damages or $500,000, but that cap rises to the greater of four times or $2 million where the conduct was driven by unreasonable financial gain with known dangerous consequences or could constitute a felony. The cap is removed entirely where the defendant intended the harm, was convicted of a felony for the same conduct, or was impaired (S.C. Code § 15-32-530).
A burn caused by egregious disregard for safety, such as a landlord's knowing failure to address a serious fire hazard, may support a punitive award in addition to the compensatory recovery. The availability of punitive damages can be significant in burn cases because the conduct that causes severe burns is sometimes genuinely reckless rather than merely careless.
A landlord who was told repeatedly about faulty wiring or missing smoke detectors and did nothing, a manufacturer that knew of a dangerous defect and continued selling the product, or a property owner who ignored a known and serious fire hazard may have engaged in exactly the kind of conduct punitive damages are meant to punish and deter.
Establishing this requires evidence of what the responsible party knew and deliberately chose to ignore. The cause of the burn therefore matters not only to liability but also to the full measure of damages the law permits, because the same evidence establishing recklessness may also support the punitive damages claim.
If a burn is fatal, the claim is a wrongful death action brought by the estate's personal representative under S.C. Code § 15-51-10. The filing deadline runs from the date of death, not the date of the fire, which matters when a burn victim survives for weeks or months before dying.
Liability for a burn injury depends on the cause, and identifying every responsible party is essential because serious burns generate costs that a single defendant may not be able to cover.
When a defective product caused the burn, the manufacturer, and sometimes the distributor or retailer, can be liable under product liability principles. A defective heater, a flammable garment, or a faulty appliance points toward the chain of parties that put it into commerce.
South Carolina imposes strict liability on the seller of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user (S.C. Code § 15-73-10), and it applies even if the seller exercised all possible care. The statutory defense is narrow: recovery is barred only where the user knew of the defect, appreciated the danger, and unreasonably used the product anyway (§ 15-73-20).
When a burn occurred on property, the owner may be liable under premises liability law for a hazard they should have addressed. A landlord who failed to provide working smoke detectors or who ignored a known electrical hazard, or a business that failed to maintain safe equipment, can be responsible for a resulting burn.
When a burn results from a crash, the at-fault driver and potentially a vehicle manufacturer come into the picture. Because a serious burn almost always exceeds a minimum auto policy, a crash-fire claim should check the injured person's own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, and every household policy that may apply, not just the at-fault driver's.
Other defendants can share responsibility depending on the facts. A contractor whose defective work created a fire or electrical hazard, or a utility responsible for a gas or electrical failure, may bear liability. The employer is generally not among them: under S.C. Code § 42-1-540, workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against an employer.
The catastrophic costs of a serious burn may require reaching more than one source to address the full harm, and overlooking a responsible party can leave significant resources unexamined.
A serious burn is not a single event but the beginning of a long medical journey, and a claim that captures only the initial treatment understates the harm.
After the emergency stabilization and the first surgeries, a burn survivor often faces a sequence of reconstructive procedures, repeated skin grafts, and ongoing wound care that can extend over years. Scar tissue contracts as it heals, sometimes limiting joint movement and requiring further surgery and physical therapy to restore function.
A careful evaluation of the future care is central to a burn claim. A life-care plan, developed with medical input, projects the cost of the future surgeries, therapy, specialized garments, assistive devices, and ongoing treatment a survivor will need. An economic analysis quantifies lost earning capacity when a burn prevents a return to the person's prior work.
For burns that cause permanent disfigurement or loss of function, these long-term costs can exceed the already substantial initial medical bills. Accurately projecting those expenses is necessary to secure a settlement or verdict that fully meets the survivor’s needs over time.
A serious burn imposes costs that continue for decades, long after the initial hospitalization that an insurer's early offer tends to focus on. A survivor with extensive scarring may need reconstructive surgery in stages over many years, pressure garments that must be replaced as they wear, ongoing physical and occupational therapy to combat contractures, and treatment for the psychological effects of the injury.
A young burn survivor may face a lifetime of such care. A settlement built only on the bills incurred to date, before this future course is understood and quantified, can leave the survivor without the resources to meet needs that will arise for years to come, which is why a complete burn claim depends on projecting the full arc of care rather than settling on the basis of the initial treatment alone.
The psychological impact of a burn injury deserves equal attention. Burn survivors commonly experience significant emotional and psychological effects, including the trauma of the event itself and the lasting impact of visible scarring and disfigurement on daily life and relationships.
Mental health treatment is an important part of recovery, and the law recognizes this suffering as a real and compensable element of the claim. A complete burn case accounts for the whole arc of recovery, medical, financial, and psychological, rather than the snapshot of the initial hospitalization.
Burn injuries in the Spartanburg area arise from the same range of causes seen elsewhere, shaped by the area's mix of housing and its substantial manufacturing economy. Apartment and rental fires are a recurring source of liability, where a landlord's failure to provide working smoke detectors, maintain electrical systems, or address a known fire hazard can lead to a catastrophic fire. These cases raise premises and landlord liability questions that determine responsibility.
Under the South Carolina Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, a landlord must keep the premises fit and habitable, maintain electrical and heating systems in reasonably good and safe working order, and comply with building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety (S.C. Code § 27-40-440(a)).
Smoke detector requirements are enforced by the applicable codes. Where a fire traces to a violation of an applicable building or fire code, that violation can be evidence of carelessness.
When a landlord ignores a tenant's reports of electrical problems, fails to replace smoke detectors, or defers needed repairs, and a fire results, the records of those complaints and the maintenance history can establish the landlord's responsibility, which is why preserving any communication with the landlord about the condition of the unit is valuable in a rental-fire case.
The area's manufacturing and industrial economy adds another dimension. Spartanburg's economy is built on the BMW plant and the extensive automotive-supplier and other manufacturing operations around it. These industrial workplaces involve chemicals, heat, electrical systems, and heavy equipment that carry burn risks, whether from an explosion, a chemical exposure, or contact with a hot surface or electrical source.
While workplace injuries can involve the separate workers' compensation system, a burn caused by a defective product or by a party other than the employer may support a separate claim against that responsible party. Whether a third party, such as a product manufacturer or contractor, is responsible is an important issue in a workplace burn case. A third-party claim falls outside the workers’ compensation system and may provide a more complete recovery.
Workers' compensation provides certain benefits regardless of fault but limits what an injured worker can recover from the employer, and it generally does not include compensation for pain and suffering. A third-party claim, by contrast, against a manufacturer whose defective equipment caused the burn, a contractor whose negligence created the hazard, or another party outside the employment relationship, can recover the full range of damages, including pain and suffering and other non-economic harms caused by a serious burn.
In an industrial economy like Spartanburg's, where workers operate around manufacturing equipment supplied and maintained by many different companies, the possibility of a third-party claim is a real one
A third-party claim can recover pain and suffering and other damages that workers' compensation does not pay. It is not purely additive: under S.C. Code § 42-1-560, the compensation carrier holds a lien on the third-party recovery for what it has paid or will pay, and there is a one-year deadline tied to the carrier's acceptance of liability. Both need to be managed from the start.
Burns also result from vehicle crashes, defective consumer products, and other incidents throughout the area. Whatever the cause, the approach is the same: determine exactly how the burn occurred, identify every responsible party, and document the full medical, financial, and human cost of an injury that can be among the most devastating a person can suffer.
Local conditions, from the area’s housing and manufacturing operations to its roads and workplaces, can help explain how these injuries occur and how the resulting claims should be built. Depending on the circumstances, a burn claim may involve several different areas of law.
| Burn cause | Likely responsible party | Governing framework |
| Defective product (heater, appliance, garment) | Manufacturer, distributor, retailer | Product liability |
| Fire or hazard on the property | Property owner or landlord | Premises liability |
| Motor vehicle crash fire | At-fault driver, possibly vehicle maker | Negligence and product liability |
| Workplace or contractor-created hazard | Contractor, equipment manufacturer, or utility | Negligence; varies by circumstance |
Burns from fires, explosions, defective products, scalding water, chemicals, or electrical hazards can support a claim when another party's negligence or a defective product caused the injury.
Depending on the cause, a manufacturer, property owner, landlord, driver, contractor, or utility may be liable. Many burn cases involve more than one responsible party.
Severe burns require intensive, prolonged, and expensive care, and they leave lasting scarring, disfigurement, and pain, all of which the law recognizes as compensable.
Three years from the injury under S.C. Code § 15-3-530(5). If the burn victim was under 18 when the injury occurred, the deadline is tolled under S.C. Code § 15-3-40, which can extend the time well past the ordinary three years. The precise calculation is contested, so a minor's claim should be dated by a lawyer rather than assumed.
If a government body is responsible, the South Carolina Tort Claims Act deadline is two years, or three years if you first file a verified claim with the agency within one year of when the loss was or should have been discovered (S.C. Code § 15-78-110). Recovery against a governmental entity is also capped at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence, and punitive damages are not available (§ 15-78-120).
A Spartanburg burn injury suit is filed in the Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas, Seventh Judicial Circuit, at the Spartanburg County Judicial Center, 180 Magnolia Street.
Yes, as long as you were 50 percent or less at fault. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage, and barred at 51 percent or more.
The Arndt Law Firm starts every Spartanburg burn injury case by finding out exactly how the injury happened. We identify every potentially responsible party and available insurance, preserve important scene and product evidence, and help document the full impact of the burn, including medical treatment, lost income, future care, and the personal toll of the injury.
Attorney Arndt previously defended insurers and institutional clients, and he knows how insurance companies evaluate and challenge high-value claims. That experience helps our firm build cases based on the actual costs and consequences of a serious burn.
If you or someone close to you suffered a serious burn in Spartanburg or elsewhere in Spartanburg County, it is important to act promptly. Scene conditions and product evidence can change or disappear within days, making it harder to establish what happened and who was responsible.
Give us a call or schedule a case review. The consultation is free, and burn injury cases are handled on a contingency-fee basis, so there is no attorney fee unless the case results in a recovery.
Last reviewed: June 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.
