In the past, "dram shops" referred to bars and liquor stores that sold small quantities of whiskey or liquor. The issue arose when patrons, who had been served at these establishments, got involved in car accidents while driving, resulting in injuries. In today's context, drunk driving accidents often cause severe or catastrophic injuries. Unfortunately, many drunk drivers have inadequate insurance to cover the damages and injuries sustained by victims.
While South Carolina doesn't have a specific statute for dram shop claims, state courts allow injured victims to seek damages and recovery from alcohol-related accidents using the state's alcohol sale statutes and negligence laws. Consequently, it's possible to hold restaurants, bars, and other entities accountable for injuries sustained by the driver of a motor vehicle or boat.
Most adults know that driving under the influence isn't just dumb - it's downright dangerous. They know that DUIs often have long-lasting, traumatic effects for everyone involved. What many people don't know is how closely related DUI and dram shop cases are in South Carolina. Consider the following scenarios:
Perhaps a 24-hour gas station doesn't check an I.D. and sells a case of malt liquor to a minor. The minor becomes intoxicated, and with a blood alcohol level exceeding the state limit, the novice driver wrecks their vehicle. One person is killed, and another is seriously injured. Or, in another instance, a bartender gives an overtly intoxicated person one last drink before they leave. The bartender later finds out that the person they served caused a car accident and injured a family of four.
In South Carolina, there are no specific dram shop statutes in place. Nevertheless, the state's courts strive to offer protection to individuals who have suffered injuries due to a drunk driver. However, filing dram shop claims, proving negligence, and navigating insurance coverage can be complicated and frustrating. That's especially true when you're hurt due to no fault of your own, and you're just trying to get through the recovery process. If you've sustained injuries from a drunk driver and believe that the person's intoxication was caused by a third party, it's time to call a dram shop law firm like Lauren Taylor Law.
Dram shop injury victims choose Lauren Taylor and her team of lawyers because they don't shy away from challenging tavern-keeper liability cases. With exceptional investigative skills, they meticulously gather relevant facts, ask hard questions, and build claims that focus on the most favorable outcomes possible.
Here at Lauren Taylor Law, we've dedicated our legal careers to assisting individuals in finding solutions to challenging legal issues. We're not in the business of prioritizing quick settlements that don't serve our clients' best interests. With decades of combined trial experience, we're passionate about getting you the compensation you deserve and feel privileged to be your dram shop injury lawyer. If you've been hurt by a drunk driver and believe that the driver's intoxication was due to a third party's negligence, get in touch with our dram shop liability lawyers. We can work together to determine if a third party can be held legally responsible.
Dram shop laws in South Carolina are complex, and the situations leading up to a trial or court case can be nuanced and confusing. Having a reliable, compassionate lawyer by your side is the best way to understand the situation you're in and fight for the compensation you deserve. Here are just a few of the most significant reasons why you should consider hiring a dram shop lawyer:
You can rely on your dram shop lawyer to use legal precedents to demonstrate that the establishment licensee failed to fulfill their legal responsibilities to ensure the safety of patrons and the public. Precedent refers to the extensive body of previous dram shop lawsuit rulings in South Carolina that a court must consider when making decisions.
If you've experienced a serious accident that has impacted your financial and personal well-being, financial compensation can provide some relief. A dram shop injury lawyer can help you seek compensation for a variety of issues, which we'll cover in detail later. In cases where you have lost a spouse in a fatal accident, your lawyer can also help create a compensation proposal that considers the loss of financial and emotional support from that person.
In South Carolina dram shop cases, the court needs evidence that the bar or restaurant served too much alcohol to the customer. Evidence can come in various forms. Your dram shop attorney can handle this thorough and time-consuming task so you don't have to.
In addition to evidence gathering, you'll need an attorney to demonstrate that the person's intoxication directly caused the injuries or property damage in question. Your attorney will gather evidence linking the intoxicated individual to the harm. This meticulous legal work is best performed by a lawyer with experience in dram shop liability, who can fill in the missing timeline details of the day of the incident.
Insurance can help cover medical expenses, property damage, and other losses resulting from an incident. Unfortunately, dealing with insurers when you're already suffering from a serious injury or personal loss can be overwhelming. Hiring a dram shop lawyer not only simplifies this process but also helps ensure you receive all the benefits entitled to you under your policy.
Your dram shop lawyer should prioritize your best interests. Sometimes, that involves negotiating a fair settlement with the alcohol-serving establishment. Other times, the best outcomes come in court. Every dram shop accident claim is unique and requires individual consideration. Effectively presenting a case in front of a judge or jury is a specialized skill possessed by experienced litigators. When you hire an experienced, proactive dram shop injury attorney in West Columbia, SC, you can rest easy knowing you'll have strong representation in both private negotiations and in the courtroom.
Today, dram shop laws hold establishments accountable for serving alcohol to intoxicated customers who cause harm. If a bar or restaurant serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who then causes a DUI accident, the establishment can be held liable for resulting injuries. The injured party can also pursue legal action against the intoxicated driver. Dram shop laws would also apply if the intoxicated patron caused harm or damage in a manner other than a car accident.
Dram shop laws are legal statutes that hold businesses accountable for serving alcohol to individuals who are already intoxicated or for selling alcohol to minors who then cause harm to themselves or others. If a business has a commercial liquor license or equivalent in South Carolina, liability may be incurred. Some of the most common types of businesses that incur dram shop liability include the following:
In the settings above, the establishment bears liability depending on the actions of their employees. Servers and other staff members who overserve intoxicated customers may be considered negligent. Some common staff positions that can be at fault under South Carolina dram shop law include managers, cashiers, store clerks, bartenders, and servers.
After an intoxicated driver causes an accident that injures another person, the victim can seek compensation from the establishment that overserved the intoxicated person. To successfully recover compensation in a dram shop case, your dram shop injury attorney in West Columbia, SC must prove that the business was negligent or intentional in serving a minor or an intoxicated person. At Lauren Taylor Law, our goal is to prove negligence in your dram shop case so that we may recover the maximum amount of damages to help you recover.
To do so, we aim to demonstrate the following
The injuries you sustained were primarily caused by the alcohol consumed by the intoxicated driver, which can be proven if the driver is found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI).
The establishment failed to fulfill its obligations to recognize intoxicated patrons, verify legal drinking age with I.D., refrain from serving alcohol to intoxicated or underage individuals, and arrange for safe transportation for intoxicated customers.
The establishment must have had a reasonable awareness that the customer was either intoxicated or underage. Checking the customer's I.D. can help establish their legal age. The level of intoxication can be assessed by observing the behavior of the individual or by tracking the number and type of drinks served to them within a specific period.
As your dram shop injury attorney in West Columbia, SC, one of our biggest jobs is supplying evidence proving that the dram shop in question was negligent. Examples of supporting evidence include the following:
Knowledge of Intoxication Evidence
The plaintiff and attorney must demonstrate that the alcohol establishment was aware or should have been aware that the customer was drunk, by showing that the bar had knowledge of intoxication or should have observed visible signs of drunkenness. Knowledge of intoxication can include knowing:
Visible signs of intoxication can include:
Duty of Care Evidence
Every business has an inherent responsibility to adhere to state law and refrain from serving individuals who are either under the legal drinking age or visibly intoxicated.
Breach of Duty Evidence
Proving that the establishment breached its duty to serve alcohol responsibly and follow the law can include showing that the establishment's employees:
Causation Evidence
An attorney can gather evidence to show that alcohol intoxication directly caused a drunk driving accident or injury by reviewing police reports, arrest records, and court documents. A conviction for DUI, DUAC, or any other alcohol-related offense can serve as compelling proof for legal action.
The short answer to this question is yes. A DUI or DUAC conviction can serve as crucial evidence to support a dram shop liability or drunk driving claim for compensation. Being convicted provides concrete proof that the driver failed in their duty of care, leading to subsequent injuries due to negligence. It's advantageous for victims to enlist a qualified dram shop injury attorney in West Columbia, SC to handle their dram shop liability case. Quality dram shop lawyers - like those at Lauren Taylor Law - conduct investigations into the source of the driver's intoxication and ascertain if any establishment contributed to over-serving the driver.
In dram shop liability cases, which are considered personal injury cases, the state allows a three-year window from the date of injury for victims to file a lawsuit against the bar that overserved a patron. If the filing deadline is missed, the judge may dismiss the case unless there is a valid legal exception. If you're thinking about taking legal action, it's important to reach out to Laurent Taylor Law as soon as possible to explore your options.
South Carolina state law ensures that victims of negligence have a way to obtain financial recovery after being injured in a bar or due to the actions of a negligent establishment. It's important to note that not only the victims of drunk driving accidents but anyone injured by an intoxicated person can file a dram shop liability claim. Compensation from dram shop cases can come from a variety of sources, including those below.
In South Carolina, businesses with an alcohol license are required to have at least one million dollars in liquor liability insurance. This insurance covers both economic and non-economic damages suffered by a victim.
If you're the victim of a DUI accident, you can recover economic damages under dram shop liability. Those damages can include the following:
You may also be eligible for non-economic damages in a dram shop liability claim. Those damages may include one or more of the following:
You can also seek punitive damages in a South Carolina dram shop liability case. These damages are awarded to punish a defendant for causing harm due to reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct. Your dram shop lawyer in South Carolina must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions met the criteria described in the statute. The burden of proof is higher than that required to win compensatory damages in a dram shop liability case.
In drunk driving accidents, courts may consider awarding punitive damages because driving while intoxicated is a deliberate violation of the law that displays a reckless disregard for others. Unlike in most other cases where punitive damages are capped, South Carolina does not limit the amount awarded in a drunk driving case.
If you've been injured due to another person's negligence and you're ready to fight for damages, it's time to call Lauren Taylor Law. Let our team of dram shop injury lawyers litigate your case and secure maximum compensation for your lost wages, hospital bills, property damage, and other losses. When you partner with a proven, experienced, successful attorney, you can increase your chances of getting full compensation.
We have the skills and trial experience needed to handle complex dram shop claims, just like yours. To learn more about your alcohol-related accident and the opportunity to bring a lawsuit against a dram shop, contact us today to schedule a consultation at the law offices of Lauren Taylor.
Free Consultation. No Obligation. Completely Confidential
We guarantee 100% privacy. Your information will NOT be shared.
COLUMBIA — Officials in the S.C. Department of Education have quietly urged the Marlboro County school board to cut ties with its superintendent, citing concerns about her cooperation with the state’s ongoing takeover of the embattled district’s finances.The board began that process Nov. 3, voting 6-3 for its lawyers to start negotiating with Superintendent Helena Tillar’s lawyers to reach a “mutually agreed upon separation.”That vote, which drew a “thank you” from State Superinte...
COLUMBIA — Officials in the S.C. Department of Education have quietly urged the Marlboro County school board to cut ties with its superintendent, citing concerns about her cooperation with the state’s ongoing takeover of the embattled district’s finances.
The board began that process Nov. 3, voting 6-3 for its lawyers to start negotiating with Superintendent Helena Tillar’s lawyers to reach a “mutually agreed upon separation.”
That vote, which drew a “thank you” from State Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver in an email to the board the next day, came after the Education Department took control of the Pee Dee district’s finances in July following years of deficit spending and ongoing financial problems.
A mutual separation agreement between Tillar and the board was one of the options laid out in an Oct. 29 letter from Henry Gunter, the Education Department’s deputy general counsel, to two attorneys representing the Pee Dee district. The letter “memorializes” conversations between the attorneys, department staff, district administrators and the school board, it says.
“It would be both prudent and justified for the Board to take clear action at its next meeting on November 3, 2025, to address Superintendent Helena Tillar’s employment contract,” the letter, obtained by The Post and Courier, says in bold text.
Gunter adds that the department believes there to be “ample evidence” for the school board to dismiss the superintendent for cause. But that option could lead to litigation, the letter warns; a mutual agreement would cost $110,833 if it was effected by Dec. 1.
His letter alleges that Tillar “repeatedly disregarded” the department’s directives that it approve new hires, and that the State Inspector General, which is investigating the district, disclosed that a senior district official alleged that district staff were told not to share “too much information” with the department.
It also raised concerns about the district’s purchase of a 2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee for Tillar’s use.
The letter alleges that the district did not follow a proper procurement process for that purchase, with Tillar instead authorizing a district staffer to purchase the car from a North Carolina CarMax, and that a district purchase card was used to pay for an extended warranty.
Tillar did not respond to the newspaper’s requests for comment made through a district spokesperson. She was hired to lead the district for the second time in 2023, after her first seven-year tenure ended in 2017 when the board forced her out of the job after she filed a grievance against board members.
She defended herself in a Nov. 3 letter to board members, noting that the district’s financial problems existed before she was rehired and blaming some of those problems on her predecessors. Tillar had alerted the board to unsustainable pay and staffing, as well as infrastructure work funded by federal pandemic relief money that hadn’t been completed as billed, she wrote.
Her administration had identified ways to cut costs, she added, even as it had to reinstate cancelled contracts for sewage work, roof repairs and HVAC systems.
She touted accomplishments including getting the district accredited, securing grant funding, reinstating after-school programs and replacing online teachers with newly hired ones.
“As it relates to the SC State Department of Education’s claim that I have been derelict with my duties, that is definitely not the case,” her letter said.
But she added that she would be willing to “compromise” and accept the 12 months of pay that her contract sets out as severance, as well as a $10,000 annuity for her recent positive evaluation. That $190,000 payout is more than the department would approve, Gunter wrote in his letter to the district’s attorneys.
Tillar still has backers on the board, including Rippen McLeod, who described the Education Department’s efforts against her as a “witch hunt.” He dismissed the state’s concerns about the Jeep, saying that the board had approved the purchase and that it was paid for by insurance after her previous car was totaled in a crash, which Tillar’s letter also explained.
“I unequivocally support Dr. Tillar 100 percent, no doubt, no doubt whatsoever,” McLeoad said. He pointed to improvements in some district schools’ state report card ratings this year.
Board chairman Michael Coachman, who also voted against the motion to negotiate a break with the superintendent, did not respond to a request for comment about the correspondence between the department and district. When initially asked Nov. 5 if the decision had anything to do with the state’s financial takeover, he had said it was “very well possible.”
The vote came with no public discussion, but followed a two-hour-long closed-door session during which the board received legal advice about the superintendent’s contract.
One board member who voted in favor of the negotiations, Leevander McRae Jr., disputed that the state had anything to do with the board’s decisions.
“That was totally a Marlboro County school board decision,” he said Nov. 5.
The department has previously said that it could take full control of the district if the situation there worsens, which would automatically disband the local board.
The Education Department’s financial takeover followed years of fiscal troubles in the small district, which had eaten away at its cash reserves to pay for a disproportionately large staff as enrollment shrunk.
The final straw for the state was a later-than-last-minute budget proposal that would have closed two campuses weeks before the start of the school year and pulled even more from the district’s reserves to balance its books.
Financial decisions now must be approved by the state.
At the start of this month, its outlook was improving but still serious; Weaver told the board it was “on the brink of insolvency.”
The district was able to make November payroll, but still owes over $2 million to the S.C. Public Employee Benefits Authority for employees’ retirement pay, Michael Thorsland, a former Oconee County superintendent hired by the Education Department to work with Marlboro leaders, told the board Nov. 3.
Tillar said during that meeting she had submitted a plan in October that would thin out district office staff from 45 to 30 and cut some teacher assistants and other staff over time, which Thorsland said would save upwards of $450,000 this fiscal year and allow for a balanced budget next year.
“We have to implement it,” he told the board. “It’s going to be some hard conversations, and some people taking on extra duties, maybe that they haven't had to do before, but that’s what it’s going to take to balance the budget.”
He attributed the district’s cash-strapped position to its depleted fund balance, a pot of money that’s sort of like a savings account for a school district. Having a solid fund balance is important because districts’ expenses don’t come due at the same time that revenue comes in, so officials need that cash on hand to pay bills on time.
Marlboro’s fund balance has dropped by about $9 million over the last three years, from nearly $15 million in 2022 to around $5.5 million at the end of June.
That overspending is because the number of non-teaching staff in the district has gone up significantly even as the number of students has gone down, Thorsland told the board.
“That’s why we’re here, that’s why there’s a budget problem,” he said.
Tillar and Coachman said during the Nov. 3 meeting that many of the additional positions that Thorsland considered excessive were not added during her tenure.
Balancing next year's budget or, ideally, creating a budget to rebuild the district’s fund balance, will require staffing cuts. But Thorsland thinks it can make most needed reductions through attrition and reassignments rather than layoffs.
The Education Department doesn’t want to see classroom staff reduced or class sizes increase, he added. But Tillar said Oct. 20 that she was previously advised by the state to raise her schools’ student-teacher ratio to the 30 to 1 maximum set by state law, which Thorsland disputed.
An August letter from the state to Tillar recommended posting no openings for two teaching jobs, a music position and seventh grade math position.
If you’re yearning for snow, South Carolina is not the place to be this week.The closest snow will be in the Western North Carolina mountains, where 18 inches could fall. Snow is falling across the upper Midwest around the Great Lakes, where 18 inches have already fallen in Negaunee in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and 13 inches in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin on Lake Michigan.But just because it’s not snowing doesn’t mean South Carolina is in the clear. Biting temperatures are expected and a freeze warning ...
If you’re yearning for snow, South Carolina is not the place to be this week.
The closest snow will be in the Western North Carolina mountains, where 18 inches could fall. Snow is falling across the upper Midwest around the Great Lakes, where 18 inches have already fallen in Negaunee in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and 13 inches in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin on Lake Michigan.
But just because it’s not snowing doesn’t mean South Carolina is in the clear. Biting temperatures are expected and a freeze warning is in effect.
The National Weather Service in Columbia said the lows are forecast to be in the mid 20s with near freezing temperatures again Tuesday night.
“Gusty winds will strengthen this afternoon, gusting to 30-40 mph at times,” NWS said. “Rough waves on area lakes will create hazardous conditions for boaters.”
“This week’s weather has been a case study in why we love living in South Carolina, but the stretch of warm, dry days is about to end,” said Frank Strait, the severe weather liaison for the S.C. State Climate Office. “A trio of fronts will make our weather more active and flip us into a January-like setup by Monday.”
The front dumping snow in the Midwest was expected to usher in a polar air mass behind it, “causing the bottom to fall out of our temperatures,” Strait said.
“We go from October-like to January-like in hours,” he said. “Most of the state will see subfreezing temperatures Monday night into Tuesday morning.”
Tuesday will be chilly with highs in the upper 40s and lower 50s, but then the South Carolina effect kicks in and by Thursday, most places will see highs of 65-70° into the weekend, when another cold front approaches.
No snow then either and probably no rain.
In fact, the U.S. Drought Monitor shows much of the state is abnormally dry or in drought.
“The drought will likely worsen and expand again over the coming weeks,” Strait said.
WEST COLUMBIA — For 28 years, Cafe Strudel has been a breakfast and brunch staple in West Columbia serving up items like its famous “hangover hashbrowns” since it first opened in 1997. But now the restaurant will be entering a new era as Foundry Hospitality Group takes over the West Columbia location.Steve Cook, a prominent Columbia restauranteur and the president of Foundry Hospitality Group said the group first started working with Cafe Strudel a few months ago as the restaurant’s original owners Trip and Mar...
WEST COLUMBIA — For 28 years, Cafe Strudel has been a breakfast and brunch staple in West Columbia serving up items like its famous “hangover hashbrowns” since it first opened in 1997. But now the restaurant will be entering a new era as Foundry Hospitality Group takes over the West Columbia location.
Steve Cook, a prominent Columbia restauranteur and the president of Foundry Hospitality Group said the group first started working with Cafe Strudel a few months ago as the restaurant’s original owners Trip and Marila Turbyfill considered selling the space.
Cook said he was inspired by Cafe Strudel’s great reputation and popularity in the community and saw the sale to Foundry Hospitality Group as a way to keep the restaurant the Turbyfills built going.
“We wanted to keep it alive, and so did the seller. And so this was a case where we can do it and make it easy,” Cook said. “We're excited to be able to keep it going.”
The hospitality group first took over the restaurant on Oct. 24 in a change first reported by The State.
Cook said the sale also helped prevent the West Columbia space from being sold and flipped into another restaurant. He said the team at Foundry Hospitality loves Cafe Strudel the same way customers do and intend to make minimal changes.
The biggest updates customers can expect in the short term are upgrades to the 300 State St. building.
“The bathrooms have to be redone as a boring, nobody cares example, but that's a big thing for us, and I think it'll help the customer experience,” Cook said. “But we don't have any plans to change the essence of what Cafe Strudel is.”
But while Cafe Strudel’s West Columbia location will continue as usual, Cook said the Lexington location has closed and will be reimagined as a new concept. Cook — who also runs Lexington steakhouse Ember with Moltó Vino owner Joe Walker and previous Halls Chophouse general manager Ryan Jones — said this choice was mostly based on concerns about running both properties, but said he is excited to bring something new to the space.
“We've got a base in Lexington with Ember right down the street, and love Lexington, and we hope to figure out something that's the best use of that property,” Cook said.
Cook said Foundry Hospitality is still deciding what the new concept will be and is planning to spend time to find the “perfect” fit.
When complete, the restaurant at 309 S Lake Drive in Lexington will join a number of other local concepts run by Cook, who owns Saluda's, Il Bucato Pizza and Arroyo Tacos & Tequila, and Foundry Hospitality Group which also covers The Devine Cinnamon Roll Deli.
While plans are not official yet, Cook said customers should look out for a number of “really cool and exciting” announcements from the hospitality group down the line.