Major commercial corridors near downtown and busy high-speed intersections around Spartanburg pose serious dangers to pedestrians. A pedestrian struck by a car has no protection at all, and the resulting injuries can be catastrophic.
South Carolina law gives pedestrians strong rights at crosswalks and intersections, rights that may be used to hold a negligent driver accountable.
At The Arndt Law Firm, we represent injured pedestrians throughout Spartanburg and Spartanburg County. We can help you pursue the compensation you're owed under South Carolina law, so you can focus on healing and moving forward. Call us at (843) 310-4645 to schedule your free case review.
South Carolina law gives pedestrians important rights, particularly at crosswalks. Under S.C. Code § 56-5-3130(a), where traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, a driver must yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be, to a pedestrian crossing within a crosswalk, when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway the vehicle is traveling on or is approaching so closely from the other half as to be in danger.
Where a signal is in operation, the pedestrian's right to cross is governed by the signal instead, and a driver still owes the separate duty of due care under S.C. Code § 56-5-3230.
A driver who violates the crosswalk right-of-way statute has violated a safety statute, which in South Carolina can support a negligence per se theory of breach. The claim still requires proof that the violation caused the injury, and the pedestrian's own conduct, including the duty under S.C. Code § 56-5-3130(b) not to leave a curb suddenly into the path of a vehicle that is too close to stop, is still weighed under the comparative negligence rule.
The law's right-of-way protection applies not only at marked crosswalks but at unmarked crosswalks. South Carolina defines a crosswalk in S.C. Code § 56-5-500 to include not only areas marked with painted lines but also the part of the roadway at an intersection lying within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the road, measured from the curbs or, where there are no curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway.
This is what an unmarked crosswalk means. Because the definition is tied to the sidewalk lines, whether an unmarked crosswalk existed at a particular intersection is a fact question that turns on the layout of that intersection. A pedestrian crossing at an intersection is often in a crosswalk for purposes of the law, whether or not it is marked, which means the right-of-way protection reaches more crossings than the painted lines alone would suggest.
The law also prohibits a particularly dangerous driver behavior. Under S.C. Code § 56-5-3130(d), whenever a vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, to permit a pedestrian to cross, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear may not overtake and pass that stopped vehicle. This addresses the multiple-threat crash, in which the stopped vehicle hides the crossing pedestrian from the overtaking driver and hides the overtaking driver from the pedestrian.
The no-passing rule is worth understanding in detail because the crash it guards against is both common and severe. A pedestrian who sees a vehicle stop for them naturally proceeds, trusting the right-of-way the law gives them, and a driver in an adjacent lane who passes the stopped vehicle, perhaps impatient or simply not registering why it stopped, drives directly into the crossing pedestrian's path.
The pedestrian never sees the passing vehicle because the stopped one blocks their view, and the passing driver never sees the pedestrian for the same reason. This multiple-threat crash, as it is sometimes called, is precisely what the no-passing rule forbids, and a driver who violates it by passing a vehicle stopped for a pedestrian bears clear responsibility for the resulting crash, because the law specifically prohibited the maneuver that caused it.
South Carolina also imposes duties on pedestrians. Under S.C. Code § 56-5-3150, a pedestrian crossing at any point other than a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection must yield to vehicles on the roadway, as must a pedestrian who crosses where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing is provided.
Between adjacent intersections where traffic-control signals are in operation, a pedestrian may cross only in a marked crosswalk, and diagonal crossing is not allowed unless a traffic-control device authorizes it. A violation of these duties does not by itself end a claim; it is weighed as the pedestrian's share of fault under the comparative negligence rule.
But a pedestrian's conduct, even when imperfect, does not erase a driver's duty to exercise care. Drivers must remain watchful for pedestrians and take reasonable steps to avoid hitting them, even a pedestrian who is not crossing at an ideal location.
A driver who was speeding, distracted, or otherwise failing to keep a proper lookout cannot escape responsibility simply because a pedestrian was not in a marked crosswalk. The driver's own duty of care continues regardless.
This interplay between pedestrians' rights and responsibilities and drivers' duties is where many pedestrian cases are contested. The insurer will emphasize anything the pedestrian did that contributed to the car accident, while the claim establishes the driver's failure to exercise the care required by law.
The evidence of what actually happened can help sort out the respective responsibilities, and a pedestrian's less-than-perfect conduct does not defeat a claim where a driver failed in the duty owed.
South Carolina imposes an independent statutory duty on drivers. Under S.C. Code § 56-5-3230, notwithstanding any local ordinance, every driver must exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, must give an audible signal when necessary, and must exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person.
That duty does not disappear because a pedestrian was crossing outside a crosswalk. The question remains whether the driver, exercising due care, could have seen and avoided the pedestrian.
A driver who sees, or should see, a pedestrian in or near the roadway has a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid striking them, regardless of whether the pedestrian was crossing in the ideal place. This means that an insurer's argument that a pedestrian was somewhere they should not have been does not end the inquiry; the question remains whether the driver, exercising reasonable care, could have seen and avoided the pedestrian.
When the evidence shows the driver had the time and opportunity to avoid the crash but failed to do so because of speed, distraction, or inattention, the driver bears responsibility, even if the pedestrian bears some share. Establishing this with evidence is what prevents a pedestrian's imperfect conduct from being treated as the whole story.
South Carolina follows modified comparative negligence under Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991). An injured pedestrian may recover as long as their share of fault is 50 percent or less, with recovery reduced by that percentage, and is barred from recovery if their share of fault is 51 percent or more. This rule comes from South Carolina case law rather than from a statute.
The driver's insurer will commonly argue that the pedestrian was at fault, by crossing outside a crosswalk, against a signal, or in a way the driver could not anticipate, or that the pedestrian darted into the road. These arguments aim to push the pedestrian's share of fault up, reducing or eliminating the recovery. They are met by establishing the driver's own failures, such as speeding, distraction, failure to yield, or failure to keep a proper lookout, that caused or contributed to the crash.
Because even a partial fault reduces the recovery and a majority fault eliminates it, the fault determination is often decisive in a pedestrian case, which makes the evidence of how the crash happened critical. The physical evidence, the point of impact, the vehicle's speed, the pedestrian's location, witness accounts, and any camera footage establish the facts and counter an inflated assignment of fault to the pedestrian.
Where a driver had the time and the duty to see and avoid a pedestrian and failed to do so, the evidence establishes that responsibility, even where the pedestrian's own conduct was not perfect.
A pedestrian struck by an uninsured driver, or by a driver who left the scene, may still have a claim under the uninsured motorist coverage on their own auto policy or that of a resident relative, even though they were on foot.
When the driver is never identified, S.C. Code § 38-77-170 requires that the accident be reported to an appropriate police authority within a reasonable time and that there was physical contact with the unknown vehicle, or an independent witness who signs an affidavit, or a recording of the crash. Those requirements make prompt reporting and witness identification critical.
A pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle has nothing to absorb the impact, which is why these crashes produce some of the most severe injuries in personal injury law. The full force of the collision is transmitted to the pedestrian's body, and the pedestrian is usually thrown onto the vehicle and then to the ground, suffering injuries from both the initial impact and the secondary impact with the road or other objects.
The injuries common to pedestrian crashes are correspondingly severe. Traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries and paralysis, multiple fractures, internal injuries, and severe and fatal injuries are all common, and even a crash at a relatively low speed can cause serious harm to a pedestrian who has no protection. The pattern of a pedestrian being struck, lifted onto the vehicle, and then thrown to the ground produces a combination of injuries that can be devastating.
When a serious pedestrian crash occurs in the Spartanburg area, the most critically injured are treated at Spartanburg Medical Center, the American College of Surgeons verified Level I trauma center serving Spartanburg.
The severity of these injuries means a pedestrian accident claim must account for substantial medical costs, extensive future care, lost earning capacity, and the profound non-economic harm of a life-altering injury. The medical records documenting the injuries and the long course of recovery are key to establishing the full extent of the harm. For the most catastrophic injuries, a life-care plan projects the future needs that a serious pedestrian injury often entails.
After a pedestrian crash, take the necessary steps to protect your claim, though a seriously injured pedestrian may not be able to do so, in which case a family member or the investigation that follows must. The first priority is always medical care.
Pedestrian injuries are often severe and may include internal or head injuries that are not immediately apparent. Thorough evaluation and follow-through with treatment are essential, both for health and for documenting the full extent of the harm.
Documenting the scene and the circumstances preserves facts that change quickly. Where possible, the location of the crash, the point of impact, the position of the vehicle and the pedestrian, the condition of any crosswalk or signal, and the lighting and visibility should be photographed and recorded, and the names and contact information of witnesses gathered.
Make sure law enforcement responds and documents the crash to create an official record. When a seriously injured pedestrian cannot do this, identifying witnesses and securing the scene evidence early becomes the work of the investigation.
In the days that follow, preserve evidence and be cautious with insurers. The driver's insurer may reach out quickly, seek a recorded statement, or extend an early offer, and an injured pedestrian or their family should understand the claim before responding, since an early settlement rarely reflects the full value of a serious pedestrian injury.
Medical records, expense documentation, and evidence from the scene can all help protect a claim. It is also important to secure nearby surveillance footage before it is overwritten.
These steps matter even more when the injuries are severe and the claim requires careful attention to detail. Much of the most important evidence, including video footage and witness accounts, may be available only for a short time after the crash. Prompt legal advice can help preserve the evidence needed to build a strong claim.
The places where pedestrians and vehicles come into conflict in the Spartanburg area reflect the contrast between the city's walkable parts and the vehicle-oriented roads that serve them.
Downtown Spartanburg, centered on Morgan Square and the surrounding streets, is a walkable district where people move on foot among shops, restaurants, and events, and where conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles occur at crosswalks and intersections in a busy urban core. In these walkable areas, crosswalk right-of-way protections are frequently at issue when a driver fails to yield to a pedestrian crossing where they have the right to do so.
The wide arterials serving the area present a different, often more dangerous environment for pedestrians. Roads like US-29, US-176, and the other multi-lane arterials are built for the movement of vehicles, with higher speeds, long distances between crossings, and conditions that are hostile to people on foot.
Spartanburg County recorded 190 fatal and serious injury crashes in 2025. US-29 and I-85 were two of the county's most damaging corridors. US-29 in particular runs as a wide, fast, multi-lane arterial through developed areas where people are on foot.
A pedestrian trying to cross one of these wide, fast roads faces a real danger, particularly where crossings are far apart, and a pedestrian must traverse multiple lanes of traffic. A crash on such a road, given the speeds involved, can be catastrophic.
The danger of these arterials is compounded by their design. When safe crossings are spaced far apart, a pedestrian who needs to reach a destination across the road faces a choice between a long detour to a marked crossing and a more direct crossing where no crosswalk exists, and the design effectively pushes pedestrians toward crossing at the most dangerous location.
An insurer may seize on a pedestrian crossing outside a marked crosswalk to argue fault, but the driver's duty to keep a proper lookout and to drive at a safe speed continues on these roads, and a driver who was speeding or inattentive cannot escape responsibility simply because the pedestrian was crossing a hostile road that offered few safe options.
The design of the road environment is part of the context in which these crashes happen, and it bears on the fault analysis when an insurer tries to place the blame entirely on a pedestrian who was navigating a road built without them in mind.
Nighttime and visibility conditions add to the danger across all of these settings. Many serious pedestrian crashes happen in darkness or low light, when a driver may see a pedestrian too late, and inadequate lighting, a lack of sidewalks forcing pedestrians into the road, and a lack of safe crossings contribute to crashes.
A pedestrian struck at night or in a poorly lit area still has the protections the law provides, and a driver's duty to drive at a speed and with the attention that allows them to see and avoid pedestrians continues regardless of the conditions. The intersection of these factors, the walkable core, the hostile arterials, and the visibility conditions, is part of understanding how pedestrian and bicycle crashes occur in the area.
An insurer will argue that a pedestrian struck at night was hard to see, as though that excuses the driver, but the law does not work that way. A driver has a duty to drive at a speed at which they can stop within the distance illuminated by their headlights, and to remain attentive to the road ahead, which means a driver who could not see a pedestrian in time was very likely driving too fast for the conditions or not paying adequate attention.
The argument that a pedestrian was hard to see, far from excusing the driver, often points directly to the driver's failure to drive in a way that accounted for the limited visibility. Evidence of the driver's speed and conduct can help counter the visibility defense and keep the responsibility where the law places it.
South Carolina law allows an injured pedestrian to recover for the full range of harm caused by a crash, and because pedestrian injuries are often catastrophic, the claim must account for losses that extend far into the future.
The economic damages begin with medical expenses, from the emergency and trauma care through the surgeries, rehabilitation, and follow-up treatment that serious injuries require, and they include the future medical care that a catastrophic injury will demand over a lifetime. For an injury like a spinal cord injury causing paralysis or a severe traumatic brain injury, these future costs can be enormous and are often the largest part of the claim.
Lost income and earning capacity form another major component. Beyond the wages lost during recovery, a serious pedestrian injury can reduce or eliminate a person's ability to work, and the loss of future earning capacity can be substantial for someone who cannot return to their prior occupation.
Calculating this requires considering the person's work, earnings, and the lasting effect of the injury, a forward-looking analysis that an early settlement offer rarely reflects, particularly given how severe pedestrian injuries tend to be.
The non-economic damages address the profound human consequences of a serious pedestrian injury: the pain and suffering, the emotional distress, and the loss of enjoyment of life that a catastrophic injury brings. A person left with a permanent disability, chronic pain, or the loss of the activities that gave their life meaning has suffered harms that no medical bill captures. South Carolina law recognizes these as real and compensable.
When the conduct that caused the crash was especially egregious, such as a drunk or extremely reckless driver, punitive damages may also be available. Punitive damages must be proved by clear and convincing evidence under S.C. Code § 15-32-520.
S.C. Code § 15-32-530 caps them at the greater of three times compensatory damages or $500,000, but that cap does not apply where the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, where the conduct was motivated by an intent to harm, or where the conduct could subject the defendant to a felony conviction.
A pedestrian struck by an impaired driver is squarely within the intoxication exception. Punitive damages are not available against a governmental entity.
Certain pedestrians are especially vulnerable, and the law recognizes that drivers must exercise particular care around them. Children are a primary concern because they are smaller, harder to see, less predictable in their movements, and less able to judge traffic speed and distance.
Drivers are expected to anticipate the presence of children near schools, parks, residential areas, and the places children gather, and to exercise heightened caution accordingly.
Areas where children are present demand special vigilance. School zones, residential neighborhoods, parks, and areas around places children frequent pose a foreseeable risk that a child may enter the road. A driver who fails to slow down and watch in these areas bears responsibility for striking a child who darts out.
The danger to children near school buses during loading and unloading is a particular concern, as a child crossing to or from a bus may be struck by a driver who failed to stop as required.
The law's recognition that children are unpredictable shapes the driver's duty around them. A driver cannot expect a child to behave with the caution of an adult, and the foreseeable possibility that a child may dart into the road near a school, a park, or a residential street is precisely why the law expects drivers to slow down and remain especially alert in these areas.
Under S.C. Code § 56-5-3230, every driver must exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian, must give an audible signal when necessary, and must exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person.
A child's own conduct is not judged by an adult standard: South Carolina measures it against what a child of like age, ability, intelligence, and experience would do. That standard makes it much harder for a driver to shift fault onto a young child, though it does not entirely remove the question, and how a child's conduct is treated depends heavily on the child's age.
The three-year deadline is also measured differently for a child. Under S.C. Code § 15-3-40, the limitations period for a person who was a minor when the injury occurred is tolled, so a child's claim is generally not lost on the same date as an adult's. How that period is computed has been the subject of dispute, so a parent should not assume a child's claim has expired without having the dates reviewed.
Older adults and people with disabilities are also more vulnerable, both because they may move more slowly or have difficulty crossing within a signal's timing and because they are more likely to suffer severe injuries from a crash.
The law's protections apply to all pedestrians, but the heightened duty to anticipate and avoid vulnerable pedestrians is especially important for children, older adults, and others who face greater risk. A claim involving a vulnerable pedestrian accounts for both the driver's heightened duty and the severe consequences these crashes so often bring.
| Pedestrian protection in SC | What it means |
| Crosswalk right of way (§ 56-5-3130) | Drivers must yield to pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk |
| Unmarked crosswalks | Right-of-way protection applies at intersections even without paint |
| No passing a stopped vehicle | Drivers may not pass a vehicle stopped for a pedestrian |
| Comparative fault | Recover if 50% or less at fault; driver's duty continues regardless |
A driver must yield to a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk, including unmarked crosswalks at intersections, and may not pass a vehicle stopped to let a pedestrian cross.
You may still recover. A pedestrian's imperfect conduct does not erase a driver's duty to watch for pedestrians and avoid hitting them, though it can be weighed under the comparative fault rule.
Yes, as long as you were 50 percent or less at fault. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage, and barred entirely at 51 percent or more.
Three years from the date of the crash under S.C. Code § 15-3-530(5). If a government entity is responsible, such as SCDOT, a county, or the City of Spartanburg, for a road, signal, or crosswalk defect, a different and shorter deadline applies.
Under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, you generally have two years from the date of loss, extended to three years only if a verified claim is filed with the agency within one year. Recovery against a governmental entity is also capped at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence, and punitive damages are not available against a government defendant.
Because these deadlines are short and the filing requirements are technical, a claim that may involve a public entity should be evaluated immediately.
A pedestrian has no protection from the impact of a vehicle and is often struck, thrown onto the vehicle, and then to the ground, producing severe injuries even at lower speeds.
The Arndt Law Firm builds every Spartanburg pedestrian accident case on the protections South Carolina law gives pedestrians, establishing the driver's failure to yield or to keep a proper lookout through the evidence, countering the insurer's effort to shift fault onto the pedestrian, and documenting the severe injuries these crashes cause.
Before representing injured people, Jonathan Arndt spent years defending insurance carriers in South Carolina personal injury litigation, work that shapes how our firm anticipates and answers the arguments a driver's insurer will make in a pedestrian case.
When an insurance claim cannot be resolved through negotiations, filing a lawsuit may be necessary to pursue compensation and have the dispute decided in court.
A Spartanburg County pedestrian accident suit is filed in the Court of Common Pleas for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, at the Spartanburg County Judicial Center, 180 Magnolia Street in Spartanburg, which opened in 2023 and replaced the former courthouse. The Clerk of Court's office is in Suite 2100.
If you or a loved one was injured as a pedestrian in Spartanburg or anywhere in Spartanburg County, reach out to us so we can secure the evidence. Your first consultation is free. Our firm handles pedestrian accident cases on a contingency basis with no fee unless there is 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.
