How a $15 Million Settlement Could Change South Carolina Injury Law

Anyone who has watched more than thirty minutes of Netflix has probably heard of Mallory Beach. That case arose from a fatal boat crash in 2019 which led to the death of the 19-year-old Mallory. The lawsuit that arose from this tragedy named members of the locally prominent and powerful Murdaugh family and a gas station convenience store accused of selling alcohol to 19-year-old Paul Murdaugh. After extensive legal proceedings, the parties reached a $15 million settlement, providing compensation for the tragic loss suffered by Mallory Beach's family.

The recent $15 million settlement in the wrongful death lawsuit over the tragic 2019 death of Mallory Beach has reignited discussions about the potential impact on personal injury and wrongful death laws in South Carolina. Determining liability is often the most challenging aspect of cases like these, but an experienced South Carolina personal injury attorney can help explain the current negligence law and the implications of the pending legislation introduced by State Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey. This landmark settlement raises questions about the current legal landscape of joint and several liability in civil law and who should be held accountable when tragedy occurs.

South Carolina’s Current Joint and Several Liability Law

In cases where joint and several liability is applied, all defendants can be held accountable for the entire amount of damages awarded, regardless of their individual level of fault. This legal principle empowers plaintiffs to pursue full compensation from any defendant, irrespective of their financial capacity or degree of culpability.

The Mallory Beach case is a perfect example of how joint and several liability was instrumental in ensuring that the victim's family received complete compensation for their loss. However, the defendant in the Beach case argued that most of the blame should be put on the teenagers who purchased the alcohol illegally. Because of the current law, though, it does not matter if the defendant was only 1% at fault. They will still be held liable.

To Senator Shane Massey, this rule is incredibly unfair to parties who might only be partially responsible for an accident. As such, Senator Massey has introduced legislation to reform the current negligence laws.

Proposed Reforms to South Carolina’s Joint and Several Liability Law

Joint and several liability reforms aim to modify the way damages are allocated among defendants in personal injury cases. Currently, under joint and several liability, a plaintiff can recover the full amount of damages from any individual defendant, regardless of their degree of fault. This places a significant burden on defendants who might be only partially responsible for the accident.

Massey's proposed bill seeks to introduce proportionate responsibility, which would allocate damages among defendants based on their degree of fault. This means that defendants would only be responsible for paying damages proportional to their share of responsibility for the accident.

The proposed reform could have significant implications for personal injury and wrongful death cases in South Carolina. It would shift the burden of responsibility away from defendants who might bear only a portion of the fault, ensuring they are not unfairly burdened with excessive compensation claims. Additionally, it might encourage settlement negotiations by providing defendants with a more predictable outcome in terms of damages.

However, the proposed reform also raises concerns. Critics argue that adopting proportionate responsibility could result in reduced compensation for plaintiffs, particularly when some defendants are unable to pay their share of the damages. This could potentially leave plaintiffs without full restitution for their injuries and losses.

Potential Consequences of Joint and Several Liability Reforms in South Carolina

If the proposed reform becomes law, defendants who are found to be partially responsible for accidents would only be liable for a proportionate share of damages. This might provide them with increased certainty about the extent of their financial obligations. However, defendants who are now protected by joint and several liability laws might face more significant financial exposure.

For plaintiffs, the proposed reform means that their ability to collect compensation might be limited by the proportion of fault allocated to each defendant. While this could potentially reduce excessive damage awards, it might also result in reduced overall compensation if some defendants are unable to pay their share.

The proposed bill's shift towards proportionate responsibility offers a more equitable distribution of financial responsibility among defendants in personal injury cases. It aims to prevent excessive burdens on defendants who are only partially at fault. By implementing proportionate responsibility, the proposed reform seeks to strike a balance between responsibility and fairness.

Despite the progress made, there are still lingering concerns about the potential consequences that might arise in regard to the plaintiffs' capacity to fully recover their compensation. There is a palpable risk that plaintiffs might not receive satisfactory restitution, particularly if some defendants are unable to pay their share. Critics argue that this will have an unfair impact on victims who are dependent on such compensation to cover their medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, and other important financial needs.