South Carolina's appellate courts issued several significant decisions in 2026 that affect how personal injury cases are built, argued, and won. Whether you're dealing with a wrongful death claim, a dispute with a government entity, or questions about expert testimony, these rulings matter. Our attorneys have reviewed the most important decisions and broken them down in plain language below.
You May Not Need a Medical Expert to Prove Conscious Pain and Suffering
One of the most practically significant rulings affecting wrongful death and survival actions came from the Court of Appeals in Abel v. Lack's Beach Serv., 446 S.C. 434, 920 S.E.2d 283 (Ct. App. 2025). The court held that lay eyewitness testimony is sufficient to submit conscious pain and suffering to a jury, without any medical expert testimony, as long as the evidence allows a reasonable inference that the decedent was conscious and experienced distress before death.
In that case, testimony describing the decedent's visible struggle in the water was enough. The court reasoned that jurors can rely on common human experience when observable facts tell the story. This is significant because medical experts can be expensive and difficult to retain quickly, and families dealing with the sudden loss of a loved one now have a clearer path to pursuing full compensation without that hurdle. Our firm was directly involved in this case.
Settling with a Government Employee Does Not Kill Your Claim Against the Agency
If you were injured by a government employee, such as in a state vehicle accident, you need to understand how your settlement choices affect your rights. In Whetstone v. Off. of Governor, No. 2023-001424, 2026 WL 175291 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2026), the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court ruling that had cut off a plaintiff's claim against the government after the plaintiff settled with the individual driver involved in the collision.
The court's holding is straightforward: a settlement with a government employee in their personal capacity does not bar a separate claim against the governmental entity under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, unless that settlement was specifically made with the Act in mind. If you've already settled with an individual and you're wondering whether you still have a claim against the agency itself, the answer may be yes, and you should speak with an attorney before assuming otherwise.
Expert Affidavit Rules Got Clearer, and More Flexible
The South Carolina Supreme Court issued three related holdings in Charles Blanchard Constr. Corp. v. 480 King St., LLC, No. 2024-001403, 2026 WL 158105 (S.C. Jan. 21, 2026) that every plaintiff's attorney needs to know.
First, if your claim is labeled as a breach of contract but the substance of the allegation is really about professional negligence, expect it to be treated as a professional negligence claim, which means you need a proper expert affidavit under South Carolina's civil proceedings requirements. The label on the complaint does not control.
Second, and more favorably, the court rejected the idea that an expert affidavit must come from someone in the exact same licensed profession as the defendant. What matters is whether the expert has specialized knowledge relevant to the conduct at issue, and whether they stay within the bounds of their actual expertise. This opens the door for qualified experts from related fields to weigh in on professional negligence claims.
Third, a defendant is not forever barred from challenging an expert affidavit just because they didn't attack it immediately. If depositions or discovery later reveal that the expert lacks the qualifications claimed or contradicts the affidavit, a renewed motion to dismiss may be permitted. Both sides need to take expert affidavit compliance seriously throughout the life of the case, not just at the pleading stage.
Fighting Improper Removal to Federal Court Just Got Easier
Defendants sometimes try to move personal injury cases from state court to federal court by arguing diversity jurisdiction, including by seeking dismissal of non-diverse defendants to manufacture that diversity. The U.S. Supreme Court shut that strategy down in Hain Celestial Grp., Inc. v. Palmquist, No. 24-724, 2026 WL 501733 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026).
The court held unanimously that erroneously dismissing a non-diverse defendant does not cure the jurisdiction problem. Because an interlocutory dismissal merges into the final judgment on appeal, reversing that dismissal restores the non-diverse party and defeats federal jurisdiction from the start. In practical terms, if a defendant removes your case to federal court by dismissing a co-defendant who shouldn't have been dismissed, that dismissal can be challenged on appeal, and if reversed, the entire case loses federal jurisdiction. Our attorneys watch for this issue in cases involving multiple defendants.
A State's Own Label Does Not Decide Sovereign Immunity
In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., No. 24-1021, 607 U.S. ____ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed what makes an entity an "arm of the state" for sovereign immunity purposes. The answer, according to the court, is structure, not labels. A state can call an entity an "instrumentality" or "arm of the State" in its statutes, but that language alone does not decide the immunity question.
Courts must look at how the entity was actually created, whether the state is on the hook for judgments against it, and the entity's degree of financial and structural independence. This matters in South Carolina cases involving public transit, state agencies, and quasi-governmental entities. If the entity you're up against is claiming sovereign immunity, that defense has to be earned through structural analysis, not just statutory language.
Two Procedural Points Worth Knowing
Two other 2026 decisions affect litigation strategy in ways that could come up in your case. In Cozby v. Oliver, No. 2024-000742, 2026 WL 295390 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals confirmed that orders granting permissive joinder and consolidation are generally not immediately appealable. Challenges to those rulings have to wait until after final judgment. And in Montgomery Holdings, LLC v. Merlo, No. 2022-001189, 2026 WL 376572 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2026), the court confirmed that paying a judgment does not waive the right to appeal, as long as restitution is possible and no settlement agreement is in place.
Understanding how the personal injury process works in South Carolina, including these kinds of procedural rules, can make a real difference in how your case unfolds.
What This Means If You Have a Claim
These decisions reflect an appellate landscape that, taken together, is increasingly focused on substance over form. Courts are rejecting rigid rules around expert qualifications, closing loopholes that defendants use to escape liability through procedure, and clarifying what plaintiffs need to prove at trial. If you've been injured and you're wondering whether your case is worth pursuing, these developments are worth discussing with an attorney who stays current on South Carolina law.
At Pracht Injury Lawyers, our attorneys track appellate trends in South Carolina so that every case we handle reflects the current state of the law. We offer free consultations at our offices in Anderson, Greenville, Summerville, and Camden, and we never charge a fee unless we recover compensation for you.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need a medical expert to prove pain and suffering in a South Carolina survival action?
Not always. The Court of Appeals held that lay eyewitness testimony can be enough to send conscious pain and suffering to the jury, as long as the facts support a reasonable inference of awareness. Medical expert testimony is not required when the circumstances make the inference clear.
Can a settlement with one party bar my claim against a government entity in South Carolina?
Generally, no. Settling with a government employee in their individual capacity does not automatically bar a subsequent claim against the governmental entity under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, unless the settlement was specifically made in contemplation of that Act.
Does an expert affidavit in South Carolina have to come from someone in the same profession as the defendant?
No. The Supreme Court rejected a strict profession-matching rule. An expert may opine on professional negligence outside their own field if their training and experience provide relevant specialized knowledge, and they stay within the bounds of that expertise.
What happens if a federal court improperly dismisses a non-diverse defendant to create jurisdiction?
The U.S. Supreme Court held that this does not cure the jurisdiction problem. If the dismissal is reversed on appeal, federal jurisdiction is treated as having never properly existed, and the final judgment must be vacated. Plaintiffs have a real tool to fight improper removal in these situations.
Can I recover emotional distress damages for the loss of my dog in South Carolina?
Not under current law. Dogs are classified as property, and emotional distress damages are not recoverable for their loss. However, the Court of Appeals left open the possibility that a dog's special value or companionship could factor into calculating actual property damages in some cases.
Does paying a judgment mean I've given up my right to appeal in South Carolina?
No. Paying a judgment does not waive the right to appeal, as long as restitution would be possible if the judgment were reversed and no settlement agreement is in place.
