At The Arndt Law Firm, we understand the profound impact that being injured by a drunk driver can have on your life. These incidents are not just accidents; they embody a specific type of injustice because they are entirely preventable. Our firm is committed to advocating for victims of impaired drivers in Summerville and the surrounding tri-county Lowcountry. We believe in holding those responsible accountable for their actions, and South Carolina law allows us to seek not only compensation for your losses but also punitive damages in many cases. These damages often exceed the standard caps.
Navigating the legal landscape after such a traumatic event can be overwhelming. Our team is here to guide you through the process and ensure that your rights are protected. With several decades of combined legal experience, we know the nuances of these claims and how they differ from ordinary accident claims. We are dedicated to thoroughly investigating your case and building a strong argument to maximize your compensation.
It’s important to remember that you typically have three years to file a claim, and you can still recover damages even if you are found to be 50 percent or less at fault for the accident. We know that the emotional and financial stress that comes with these injuries can be hard to cope with, and we will work on your behalf so you can focus on your recovery.
After a drunk driving crash, two distinct legal processes can follow, and understanding the difference matters to an injured person. The state brings the criminal case against the drunk driver to punish the crime of driving under the influence, and it can result in penalties like fines, license suspension, and jail. The injured person is a witness in that case, but the criminal prosecution does not compensate them for their injuries.
The civil claim is separate. It is the injured person's own claim against the drunk driver and any other responsible parties to recover compensation for medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and other losses. This claim proceeds independently of the criminal case, with its own rules and its own timeline, and an injured person does not need to wait for the criminal case to conclude to pursue it. The outcome of the criminal case does not control the civil claim, though evidence from it can be useful.
This distinction matters because an injured person sometimes assumes that the criminal prosecution will address their losses, or that a conviction is necessary for a civil claim. Neither is true. The civil claim is the path to compensation; it stands on its own, and it can succeed even where the criminal case resolves differently, because the civil standard of proof is lower than the criminal standard. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while a civil claim requires only the greater weight of the evidence, which means a civil claim can succeed even if the criminal case ends in an acquittal, a dismissal, or a plea to a lesser charge.
One of the most significant features of a drunk driving claim is the availability of punitive damages, which are meant to punish especially blameworthy conduct and to deter it, rather than to compensate the injured person. Punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence that the harm resulted from the defendant’s wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct (South Carolina Punitive Damages Standard, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-32-520 (2023)).
On the request of any defendant, the trial is bifurcated, with punitive damages considered only in a second stage and only if compensatory or nominal damages were awarded. Driving while impaired is conduct that frequently meets this standard. A drunk driver who chose to get behind the wheel after drinking has engaged in exactly the kind of reckless conduct punitive damages address.
What makes drunk driving cases particularly notable is how South Carolina treats the cap on punitive damages. South Carolina Punitive Damages Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-32-530 (2023), generally caps punitive damages at the greater of three times compensatory damages or $500,000 (subsection (A)), with a higher tier of four times compensatory damages or $2 million where the conduct could subject the defendant to a felony conviction (subsection (B)).
The cap is removed entirely under subsection (C) where the defendant intended to harm, where the defendant pleaded guilty to or was convicted of a felony arising from the same conduct, or where the defendant acted under the influence of alcohol or drugs (other than lawfully prescribed drugs taken as prescribed) to the degree that the defendant’s judgment was substantially impaired. Whether that standard is met is a question of proof and does not result automatically from a DUI charge.
The practical effect is meaningful. In an ordinary negligence case, punitive damages, if available at all, are limited by the cap, but in a case where the at-fault driver was impaired, that limit can be removed, allowing a punitive award that reflects the full gravity of the conduct. This makes the impaired-driving exception one of the most important features of a drunk driving claim, and it is part of why these cases can carry a different value than an ordinary crash. Establishing the driver's impairment is central both to the liability case and to the availability of uncapped punitive damages, which is why the evidence of intoxication from the police investigation and any testing matters so much.
A simple illustration shows the difference the exception can make. Suppose a crash produces 400,000 dollars in compensatory damages. In an ordinary case, the punitive cap, set at the greater of three times that amount or 500,000 dollars, would set a ceiling. But where the driver was impaired, and the exception applies, that statutory ceiling is removed, and the punitive award is governed by what the evidence and the law otherwise allow rather than by the cap.
This does not mean every drunk driving case yields a large punitive award, since punitive damages still require clear and convincing proof and remain subject to other legal limits. But it does mean the artificial ceiling that constrains ordinary cases does not apply. The removal of that ceiling reflects a deliberate legislative judgment that impaired driving is among the conduct society most wants to deter, and it gives a drunk driving claim a dimension that an ordinary negligence claim lacks.
South Carolina has no single dram shop statute. Liability is built from the alcohol-control laws: South Carolina Beer and Wine Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580(A)(1)–(2) (2023), makes it unlawful for a beer and wine permittee to sell to a person under 21 or to 'an intoxicated person, and South Carolina Liquor Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-2220 (2023), imposes a parallel prohibition for liquor.
Violating those provisions is treated as negligence per se, and the injured person must still prove the violation was a proximate cause of the crash. This liability reaches licensed establishments; South Carolina does not impose social host liability for serving an adult guest at a private gathering.
This form of liability matters because it can provide an additional source of recovery, particularly important when the drunk driver carries inadequate insurance. A bar, restaurant, or other licensed establishment that continued serving an obviously intoxicated patron who then drove and caused a serious crash may share responsibility for the resulting harm. Establishing this requires evidence about the service of alcohol, the patron's condition, and what the establishment knew or should have known, which makes prompt investigation important before that evidence disappears.
For crashes that took place after January 1, 2026, if a verdict is returned against both a licensed establishment and a driver who was charged with DUI under South Carolina DUI Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2930 (2023), S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2933 (2023), or S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2945 (2023), the establishment is jointly and severally liable for 50 percent of the plaintiff’s actual damages, and the driver appears on the verdict form, under South Carolina Dram Shop Liability Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-147(A) (2023). Where the driver was not charged under one of those statutes, the 50 percent rule does not apply.
The same act also requires establishments licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption after 5 p.m. to carry liquor liability coverage with an annual aggregate limit of at least $1 million, with per-occurrence coverage of at least half the aggregate, and a reduced floor of $300,000 for licensees that complete server training and other risk-mitigation measures. That requirement means a dram shop defendant is more likely to carry meaningful coverage than before.
South Carolina follows modified comparative negligence under Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991): an injured person may recover if their own fault is 50 percent or less, with the award reduced by their percentage, and is barred at 51 percent or more. A separate statute, the South Carolina Comparative Fault Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-38-15 (2023), governs how fault is apportioned among defendants and when a defendant is jointly and severally liable. In a case where the other driver was drunk, fault is often clear, since the impaired driver bears responsibility, but the rule still governs the analysis.
Even in a drunk driving case, the at-fault driver's insurer may try to assign some fault to the injured person, arguing that they could have avoided the crash or contributed to it in some way. These arguments are met by establishing the facts of the crash and the central role of the driver's impairment. The driver's intoxication is powerful evidence of fault, and it tends to place responsibility squarely on the impaired driver. However, the injured person's case is still strengthened by developing the full picture of how the crash happened.
Where a dram shop claim is involved, the fault analysis incorporates the establishment's share alongside the driver's, under the rules now in effect. The allocation of responsibility among the driver, any establishment, and any other parties shapes what each is responsible for, and the 2026 change to establishment liability affects how that allocation works.
These provisions apply to causes of action arising or accruing after January 1, 2026, and to policies issued after that date. Crashes before that date are governed by the prior version of the South Carolina Comparative Fault Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-38-15. Understanding how fault is apportioned among the responsible parties is part of building a drunk driving claim that reaches the full recovery available.
Drunk driving crashes often cause severe injuries, and the drunk driver's insurance is frequently insufficient to cover the harm, which makes identifying every source of recovery especially important. The starting point is the driver's liability policy, but South Carolina's minimum limits are low, and a serious drunk driving injury can far exceed them. When that happens, additional sources of coverage become critical to addressing the full harm.
The injured person's own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is often a key source. South Carolina makes uninsured motorist coverage mandatory and requires that underinsured coverage be offered, and these coverages on the injured person's own policy can apply when the drunk driver has no insurance or too little, with stacking sometimes available to increase the amount. Because drunk drivers are disproportionately likely to be uninsured or underinsured, this coverage is frequently essential in these cases, a subject addressed further on our Summerville car accident lawyer page.
A dram shop claim against an establishment that overserved the driver can provide another source, subject to the current rules on establishment liability. Where the driver was working at the time, an employer's policy may respond, and other responsible parties may exist depending on the circumstances.
Identifying every responsible party and every applicable policy is what allows a serious drunk driving claim to reach the resources the injury requires, and the punitive damages available in these cases can add to the recovery beyond the compensatory coverage. Where a crash is fatal, South Carolina's wrongful death and survival statutes allow the family and estate to recover, as addressed on our Summerville wrongful death lawyer page.
In 2025, there were 84 fatal and serious injury crashes in Dorchester County and 304 in Charleston County, the two counties Summerville spans. Statewide, South Carolina recorded 136,044 collisions, 946 traffic deaths, and 48,685 injuries (South Carolina Department of Public Safety).
Drunk driving crashes occur throughout the Summerville area, shaped by the area's roads and its growth. Because Summerville sits in both Dorchester and Charleston counties, there is no single 'Summerville courthouse.'
A civil case arising from a crash on the Dorchester side is filed in the First Judicial Circuit at the Dorchester County Courthouse, 5200 E. Jim Bilton Blvd., St. George, SC 29477. A crash on the Charleston side goes to the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Charleston County, 100 Broad Street, Charleston. Which side of the line the crash occurred on is the first venue question in a Summerville case.
The restaurants and bars along the busy commercial corridors, including US-17A and the establishments serving the area's growing population, mean drivers leave these places and travel the surrounding roads, sometimes impaired. The combination of these establishments, busy roads, and the heavy traffic of a fast-growing metro creates conditions where impaired-driving crashes happen.
The area's interstate and major corridors carry their own risk. Interstate 26, the spine of the area, carries heavy traffic, including drivers passing through the region, and impaired driving on the interstate and the major surface routes produces some of the most serious crashes. Nighttime and weekend hours carry elevated risk, as they do everywhere, and the consequences fall on innocent people who happened to be on the road when an impaired driver was behind the wheel.
When a crash involves a business that overserved the driver, the local establishment may become part of the claim under South Carolina's dram shop principles and the current rules on establishment liability. Identifying where the driver had been drinking, and whether an establishment served them while they were visibly intoxicated, is part of investigating a Summerville drunk driving case, and this investigation is most productive when it begins quickly, because the records and witnesses that connect a driver to the establishment that overserved them grow harder to obtain as time passes.
The steps taken after a crash with a suspected drunk driver protect both health and the claim, and some are specific to the impaired-driving context. The first priority is medical care, given how severe these crashes tend to be, and prompt treatment both addresses the injury and creates the record that connects it to the crash. An able person should accept evaluation even when injuries are not yet obvious.
At the scene, ensuring that law enforcement responds is especially important in a suspected drunk driving crash, because the officers will investigate the driver's impairment, conduct field sobriety and breath testing, and document their findings. This investigation creates evidence of the driver's intoxication that is central to the civil claim, including the availability of punitive damages, so a documented police response matters more here than in an ordinary crash. To the extent injuries allow, photographs of the scene and the vehicles and the names of witnesses preserve additional evidence.
In the period that follows, preserving evidence and acting promptly protect the claim. Evidence of where the driver had been drinking, which can support a dram shop claim, is time-sensitive, since an establishment's records and witnesses become harder to obtain as time passes. Keeping all medical records and documentation builds the damages case, and being cautious about giving recorded statements to the driver's insurer guards against early tactics. Because the evidence of impairment and overservice can disappear, seeking advice early helps preserve what these claims depend on.
| Drunk driving claim feature | What it means |
| Punitive damages | Available for impaired driving; the usual cap is lifted |
| Dram shop liability | A business that overserved may share responsibility |
| 2026 establishment rule | Establishment liable for 50% of actual damages when both it and the driver are liable |
| UM/UIM coverage | Often essential, since drunk drivers are frequently underinsured |
Yes, the civil claim is separate from the criminal prosecution. You do not need to wait for the criminal case, and you can recover even if the criminal case resolves differently, because the civil standard of proof is lower.
Often yes. South Carolina allows punitive damages for reckless conduct like impaired driving, and the usual cap on punitive damages is lifted when the driver was under the influence, which can significantly increase the recovery.
A business serving a visibly intoxicated person or a minor who causes a crash may share liability. After January 1, 2026, if both a licensed establishment and a charged driver are found liable, the establishment is liable for 50% of damages under South Carolina law. If the driver isn't charged under those statutes, the establishment’s liability is limited to its fault percentage.
The general deadline is three years from the crash (South Carolina Statute of Limitations, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(5) (2023)). Different rules apply if the injured person was a minor, with the tolling period during minority being debated; therefore, a minor’s deadline should be calculated case by case. If a government entity is responsible, the South Carolina Tort Claims Act applies, barring action after two years unless a verified claim is filed first, extending the period to three years (S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (2023)). Recovery is capped at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per incident, with no punitive damages against a government entity (S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-120 (2023)).
Your own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage may apply, and a dram shop claim against an establishment that overserved the driver may provide another source of recovery.
The Arndt Law Firm pursues every Summerville drunk driving case for the full measure of accountability the law allows, establishing the driver's impairment, pursuing the uncapped punitive damages that impaired driving can support, investigating whether an establishment overserved the driver, and identifying every source of coverage to address what are often catastrophic injuries.
Attorney Arndt previously defended insurers, so our firm understands how these claims are evaluated and contested and builds each case to hold the responsible parties fully accountable. You can also check out our South Carolina drunk driving accident page to see how we handle these cases across the state.
If you or a loved one was injured by a drunk driver in Summerville or anywhere in the tri-county Lowcountry, acting early protects the evidence of impairment and overservice that these claims depend on, evidence that can disappear quickly.
The consultation is free; drunk driving accident cases are handled on a contingency basis with no fee unless there is a recovery, and the evidence that establishes the driver's impairment and any establishment's role is most available soon after the crash.
After you have been injured in a drunk driving accident, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Contact The Arndt Law Firm today for a free consultation, and let us help you take the first steps toward recovery and justice. Your well-being is our priority, and we are here to help you every step of the way.
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.
