Spartanburg's growth has brought heavier foot traffic to spots like Morgan Square, malls, and the shops along East Main Street, and with it, more premises liability risks. When a property owner ignores a cracked sidewalk, wet floor, or broken stairwell, everyday visitors pay the price with broken bones, head injuries, or worse.
When you are injured on someone else's property in Spartanburg because of a dangerous condition the owner should have addressed, South Carolina law may allow you to recover, but insurers rarely make it easy, often shifting blame onto the injured person. Whether you can recover, and how much, depends on why you were on the property and whether the owner knew or should have known about the hazard.
The Arndt Law Firm represents people injured on unsafe property across Spartanburg and Spartanburg County, helping them pursue the compensation they may be entitled to under South Carolina law. Call us at (843) 310-4645 to schedule a free case review.
South Carolina premises liability begins with a question that surprises many injured people: What was your legal status on the property when you were hurt? The law sorts visitors into categories, and the property owner's duty depends on which one applies.
The three principal categories are invitees, licensees, and trespassers, with special protections for children, and the difference between them can decide whether a claim succeeds.
An invitee is owed the most protective of the three standards: reasonable or ordinary care for the invitee’s safety, which includes inspecting for hazards, correcting dangerous conditions, and warning of latent dangers the owner knows or should know about. The owner is not an insurer of the invitee’s safety.
A licensee is a social guest, present with permission but for their own purposes. The owner does not have to inspect the property or make it safe, but does owe two duties: to use reasonable care to discover the licensee and avoid injuring them while carrying on activities on the land, and to warn of concealed dangerous conditions the owner knows about, or of changes in the property’s condition that may be dangerous.
A trespasser, someone on the property without permission, is owed only the duty not to be willfully or wantonly injured. That rule is now statutory: S.C. Code § 15-82-10(B). Children are treated differently.
S.C. Code § 15-82-10(C) makes a landowner liable for harm to a trespassing child caused by an artificial condition where all of the following are shown: the possessor knew or had reason to know children were likely to trespass there; knew or had reason to know the condition posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children; the child did not discover or appreciate the risk because of youth; the utility of maintaining the condition was slight compared to the risk; and the possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or protect the child. The child need not have been lured onto the property by the hazard itself (Henson v. International Paper Co., 374 S.C. 375 (2007)).
The correct status sets the standard that the owner must meet. But status is not always fixed, and insurers commonly exploit that.
A person can begin as an invitee in a business's public area and become a licensee or even a trespasser by entering an employee-only area or a part of the property where customers are not permitted. Insurers sometimes argue that a person who was clearly invited onto the property had wandered into a restricted area in order to reduce the duty that applied.
This is why a major part of building a claim is establishing where the injury actually occurred and that the person had a right to be there; the duty the owner owed depends on the visitor's status at the precise place and moment of the injury.
When the evidence shows the injured person was in an area open to customers, doing what customers do, the owner owed them the full invitee duty, and the insurer's effort to recast them as a trespasser or licensee fails on the facts.
For most premises cases involving invitees, liability turns on notice, meaning whether the owner knew or should have known about the hazard that caused the injury. South Carolina recognizes two kinds.
Actual notice means the owner knew about the dangerous condition, such as when an employee saw a spill. Constructive notice means the condition existed long enough that the owner should have discovered and fixed it through reasonable inspection, even without actually knowing.
The notice is commonly disputed, and South Carolina law makes it a real hurdle. South Carolina courts will not let a jury speculate about how long a hazard was present; there has to be evidence (Gillespie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 302 S.C. 90 (1990)).
There is no fixed number of minutes that wins or loses a case. The question is whether, under the actual circumstances, the owner should have discovered and removed the condition using ordinary care, so the longer the evidence shows it persisted, the stronger the claim.
Evidence of the timeline matters a great deal. Surveillance footage showing when a hazard appeared, employee testimony, inspection logs, and the condition of the hazard itself all help establish how long it was present.
Because owners do not volunteer this evidence and it can disappear quickly, securing it early often determines whether constructive notice can be proven. A strong premises claim is built on facts about the hazard's history, not on the assumption that the owner must have known.
Where the owner or its employees created the hazard, the notice question drops out, because the injured person can prove liability by showing a specific act of the owner that created the dangerous condition rather than by proving how long it sat there (Anderson v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 296 S.C. 204, 371 S.E.2d 530 (1988)).
South Carolina has not gone further than that. In Wintersteen v. Food Lion, Inc., 344 S.C. 32 (2001), the Supreme Court declined to adopt a “mode of operation” rule that would let a customer rely on the general foreseeability that a business’s own operations produce spills, holding a storekeeper liable only where it placed the substance on the floor or had actual or constructive notice of it. A history of the same hazard recurring is still useful, but as evidence bearing on actual or constructive notice under the traditional test, not as a substitute for it.
Premises liability covers a wide range of injuries. Slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall injuries are the most common, arising from wet floors, uneven surfaces, poor lighting, and obstacles in walkways, and they have their own considerations that an experienced Spartanburg slip and fall lawyer can address.
Stairway falls from broken steps, missing handrails, or code violations are a frequent and serious category. Other claims arise from structural and maintenance failures. Inadequate maintenance of walkways, parking lots, and common areas produces falls and other injuries, and swimming pool injuries, including drownings, are a recurring premises concern, especially where pools are not properly secured against children.
Falling merchandise or objects in stores, elevator and escalator malfunctions, and exposure to hazards a property owner failed to address all generate claims.
Negligent security is a distinct and important category. When a property owner fails to provide reasonable security and a visitor is harmed by a foreseeable criminal act, such as an assault in a poorly lit or unsecured area, the owner may be liable for failing to protect against a danger they should have anticipated.
South Carolina decides these cases under the balancing test adopted by the Supreme Court in Bass v. Gopal, Inc., 395 S.C. 129 (2011). The court weighs how foreseeable the crime was against the burden of the security measures that would have prevented it: the more foreseeable the crime, the more the owner is required to do.
Prior similar incidents on the property are the strongest evidence of foreseeability, but their absence does not end the case where other factors show a heightened risk. South Carolina rejected the broader totality-of-the-circumstances approach used in some states.
The foreseeability question in a negligent-security case can determine whether a claim succeeds, and it depends on what the owner knew about the risk. A property with a history of criminal incidents or circumstances that should have alerted the owner to danger may give rise to a duty to take reasonable security measures, such as adequate lighting, functioning locks, security personnel, or surveillance.
When an owner ignored a known risk and a visitor was harmed by exactly the kind of criminal act the owner should have guarded against, the failure to provide reasonable security can form the basis for liability, established through evidence of prior incidents and the property's circumstances.
Serious falls, stairway injuries, and negligent-security assaults in the county are typically taken to Spartanburg Medical Center, the only ACS-verified Level I trauma center in Spartanburg.
Dog bites or attacks on a property are another type of premises-related injury, but they are primarily governed by a strict liability statute rather than standard general negligence rules.
South Carolina's modified comparative negligence rule applies to premises liability, 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 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; it is not the source of the plaintiff’s bar.
In premises cases, the owner's insurer routinely argues that the injured person was partly to blame. The most common defense is that the hazard was open and obvious, meaning the injured person should have seen and avoided it.
South Carolina courts do consider whether a condition was open and obvious, but visibility does not automatically defeat a claim, particularly when the owner created the hazard or when the layout of the property made avoidance impractical. A condition can be visible and still unreasonably dangerous, and the owner's duty is not erased simply because a hazard could theoretically have been seen.
Insurers also argue that the injured person was distracted or not watching where they were going. These arguments go to comparative fault, and they are met by shifting the focus to the owner's failure to maintain the property.
Because even a finding of partial fault reduces the recovery, and a finding of majority fault defeats it, establishing the owner's responsibility and minimizing any share attributed to the injured person is often where a premises case is won.
The open-and-obvious defense in particular deserves scrutiny because a business arranges its space to draw a customer's attention to merchandise and displays, not to the floor, and the law recognizes that an owner who creates an environment designed to distract cannot easily complain that a customer failed to notice a hazard underfoot.
South Carolina follows Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A. In Callander v. Charleston Doughnut Corp., 305 S.C. 123 (1991), the Supreme Court held an owner liable despite an open and obvious defect where the owner should anticipate that the invitee will encounter the condition anyway, including where the owner has reason to expect the invitee’s attention will be distracted.
Some premises injuries occur on government property, such as a public building, a park, a school, or a publicly owned facility, and those claims are governed by different, shorter rules.
Claims against the State, a county, or a municipality run under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. Suit must be filed within two years of when the loss was or should have been discovered, under S.C. Code § 15-78-110. That period stretches to three years if a verified claim was first filed with the right entity within one year of discovery, under §§ 15-78-80 and 15-78-110.
Filing the verified claim is an election that buys the longer deadline; it is not a step that must be completed before suit, but because it is the only way to get the third year, it should be evaluated immediately.
The Act also caps recovery against a government entity at 300,000 dollars per person and 600,000 dollars per occurrence, and it bars punitive damages against the government. These limits and the shorter deadlines mean that a premises claim against a public entity must be handled differently from one against a private owner.
The one-year verified-claim step, in particular, can catch an injured person off guard. In an area with significant public property, from government buildings to parks to schools, an injury on what appears to be ordinary property may in fact trigger these rules.
A separate statute can cut off a claim on land open for recreation. Under S.C. Code § 27-3-30, an owner who makes land available for recreational use owes no duty to keep the premises safe, and under § 27-3-40, giving permission does not make the visitor an invitee or licensee.
The protection does not apply where the owner was grossly negligent or willfully failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, or where the owner charged a fee for entry (§ 27-3-60).
It is not always obvious whether a property is publicly or privately owned, or whether a public entity is responsible for its maintenance, so identifying the correct owner early helps protect the claim. A premises injury on what appears to be ordinary property may, in fact, involve a government entity. Determining the ownership and maintenance responsibility for the property where an injury occurred is therefore one of the first steps in evaluating a premises claim.
Spartanburg's growth influences the premises liability landscape in the area. As the manufacturing economy around the BMW plant and the automotive-supplier operations has grown, the area has seen commercial and retail development to serve a growing workforce and population, from the shops and restaurants of the revitalizing downtown around Morgan Square to the retail centers along the busy corridors.
This growth means more commercial properties where the public gathers, and more places where a failure to maintain safe conditions can cause injury. The retail and commercial environment is where many premises injuries occur.
Grocery stores, retail centers, restaurants, hotels, and other businesses that serve the area's population are places where customers are invitees owed the highest duty of care, and where spills, hazards, and maintenance failures can cause falls and other injuries.
A busy store during peak hours generates spills, dropped merchandise, and tracked-in water at a rate that demands diligent inspection. An owner who fails to monitor and address these hazards may be liable when a customer is injured by a condition that reasonable attention would have caught.
The manufacturing and industrial character of the area adds its own premises dimension. While injuries to employees at the area's manufacturing and warehouse operations may involve the separate workers' compensation system, an injury on commercial or industrial property caused by a party other than the employer, such as a property owner or a contractor, may support a premises claim.
An employee injured at work generally cannot sue their employer: workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy under S.C. Code § 42-1-540. But § 42-1-560 preserves a claim against a third party whose negligence caused the injury, such as the property owner, a general contractor, or another contractor on site. Those claims can be pursued alongside a comp claim, subject to the carrier’s lien on the recovery.
Regardless of the setting, the same core questions apply: the injured person's status, the owner's duty, whether the owner had notice of the hazard, and whether that hazard caused the injury.
Premises liability claims can arise across a broad range of properties, from retail centers and restaurants to the commercial and industrial sites that support the local economy. The area’s growing commercial and industrial environment provides important context for understanding how these injuries occur and how the resulting claims should be developed.
| Visitor status | Who it describes | Owner's duty |
| Invitee | Customer or business guest | Reasonable care: inspect, correct hazards, and warn of latent dangers |
| Licensee | Social guest | Warn of known hidden dangers; no duty to inspect |
| Trespasser | Person without permission | Only the duty not to inflict willful or wanton injury |
| Child | Child drawn by a hazard | Attractive nuisance protections may apply |
Yes. South Carolina sets the owner's duty by your status. Invitees are owed a reasonable or ordinary care, licensees a lesser one, and trespassers very little, with special protections for children.
You must show actual or constructive notice. Constructive notice means the hazard existed long enough that the owner should have discovered and fixed it through reasonable inspection.
That does not automatically defeat your claim. A visible condition can still be unreasonably dangerous, especially if the owner created it or avoidance was impractical.
Three years under S.C. Code § 15-3-530(5), running from when you knew or should have known you had a claim (§ 15-3-535). A different clock applies to children: under § 15-3-40, the time a person is under 18 does not count against the limitations period, and how that computation runs to the day is a question a lawyer should review on the specific facts. It’s best not to assume a child’s claim has expired.
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.
A premises liability suit arising in Spartanburg County is filed in the Court of Common Pleas for the Seventh Judicial Circuit at the Spartanburg County Courthouse on Magnolia Street.
The Arndt Law Firm builds every Spartanburg premises case around the questions that decide it: the injured person's status, the owner's duty, and whether actual or constructive notice can be proven.
At our firm, we act quickly to preserve surveillance footage and maintenance records that establish the timeline of the hazard. And because attorney Arndt previously defended insurers and institutional clients, he is familiar with the open-and-obvious and lack-of-notice defenses that property owners raise and builds the case to overcome them.
If you were injured on unsafe property in Spartanburg or anywhere in Spartanburg County, contact us so we can help secure footage and records that prove notice, much of which the owner controls and can be lost within days. Your initial consultation is free, and we handle premises 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.
