South Carolina Code of Laws
Chapter 3 - State Law For Aeronautics
Section 55-3-60. Liability and lien for damages.

The owner of an aircraft operated over the land or waters of this State is absolutely liable for injury to persons or property on the land or water beneath the aircraft which is caused by ascent, descent or flight of the aircraft or the dropping or falling of an object from an aircraft, whether the owner was negligent or not, unless the injury is caused in whole or in part by the negligence of the person injured or of the owner or bailee of the property injured. If the aircraft is leased at the time of the injury to person or property both owner and lessee is liable and they may be sued jointly or either or both of them may be sued separately. An airman who is not the owner or lessee is liable only for the consequences of his negligence. The injured person or owner or bailee of the injured property shall have a lien next in priority to the lien for State and county taxes on the aircraft causing the injury to the extent of the damage caused by the aircraft or an object falling from it. A chattel mortgagee, conditional vendor or trustee under an equipment trust of an aircraft out of possession shall not be considered an owner or lessee within the provisions of this section. This section shall not apply to damage to airport property that is neither malicious nor intentional, nor shall this section apply to damage to crushable materials, collapsible structures, or aircraft arresting systems that are designed to deform when used.
HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 2-6; 1952 Code Section 2-6; 1942 Code Section 7104; 1932 Code Section 7104; 1929 (36) 220; 1946 (44) 1371; 2012 Act No. 270, Section 2, eff June 18, 2012.
Effect of Amendment
The 2012 amendment in the third sentence, substituted "airman" for "aeronaut"; added the last sentence to the section; and made other, nonsubstantive, changes throughout.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Encyclopedias
2 S.C. Jur. Aviation and Airports Section 15, Generally.
Treatises and Practice Aids
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm (Basic Principles) Section 20 PFD 1, Abnormally Dangerous Activities.
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm (Basic Principles) Section 20 TD 1, Abnormally Dangerous Activities.
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm Section 20, Abnormally Dangerous Activities.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Generally 1
Damage occasioned by airplanes operated by United States government 3
Distinction between owner of aircraft and nonowner operator 2
Dropping or falling objects 5
Effect of plaintiff's conduct 4
1. Generally
The effect of this section is to make the infliction of injury or damages by the operation of an airplane of itself a wrongful act giving rise to liability. U.S. v. Praylou (C.A.4 (S.C.) 1953) 208 F.2d 291, certiorari denied 74 S.Ct. 628, 347 U.S. 934, 98 L.Ed. 1085.
It is not necessary for plaintiffs to prove negligence in defendant's operation of its aircraft in view of this section. Nevertheless, it is essential of their causes of action that plaintiffs prove a causal connection between the overflight of defendant's aircraft over the property and their alleged damages. Lorick v. U. S. (D.C.S.C. 1967) 267 F.Supp. 96.
To recover plaintiffs must establish by the preponderance of the evidence that the overflight of the government aircraft over their properties was the proximate cause of their damages. Lorick v. U. S. (D.C.S.C. 1967) 267 F.Supp. 96.
This section imposes absolute liability whether the invasion of personal rights is intentional or not. Long v. U. S., 1965, 241 F.Supp. 286.
Irrespective of the actionable negligence of defendant in the manner in which it operated its helicopter at low altitude over the head of plaintiff's team of mules, defendant was liable to plaintiff under the provisions of Code 1962 Sections 2-5 and 2-6. Long v. U. S., 1965, 241 F.Supp. 286.
Defendant is liable for plaintiff's injuries in the absence of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff if defendant's helicopter is operated over plaintiff's land with resulting injury to plaintiff. Long v. U. S., 1965, 241 F.Supp. 286.
2. Distinction between owner of aircraft and nonowner operator
No denial of equal protection results from difference in classification making owner of aircraft absolutely liable under Section 55-3-60 while nonowner operator is liable only for consequences of negligence. Green v. Zimmerman (S.C. 1977) 269 S.C. 535, 238 S.E.2d 323.
3. Damage occasioned by airplanes operated by United States government
Under this section the infliction of injuries or damages by the operation of an airplane in itself is a wrongful act giving rise to liability, and the United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act when such damages are inflicted by airplanes operated by government employees on business for the United States. Lorick v. U. S. (D.C.S.C. 1967) 267 F.Supp. 96.
To recover plaintiffs must establish by the preponderance of the evidence that the overflight of the government aircraft over their properties was the proximate cause of their damages. Lorick v. U. S. (D.C.S.C. 1967) 267 F.Supp. 96.
4. Effect of plaintiff's conduct
Even had plaintiff known that helicopters were operating in the area, this would not relieve defendant of its liability under the Uniform Aeronautics Act nor could it relieve defendant from the consequences of its negligence in operating its helicopter. Long v. U. S., 1965, 241 F.Supp. 286.
Where plaintiff signed a permit authorizing defendant to enter upon his lands during maneuvers, he was not thereby placed on notice that airplanes and helicopters would be used and the permit was not a bar or defense to an action for damages resulting from operation of a helicopter over the lands. Long v. U. S., 1965, 241 F.Supp. 286.
5. Dropping or falling objects
Spraying or dusting of chemicals from aircraft in flight constitutes dropping or falling of object therefrom within meaning of Section 55-3-60. Green v. Zimmerman (S.C. 1977) 269 S.C. 535, 238 S.E.2d 323.
There is no basis for conclusion that, in adopting licensing requirements for aerial applicators, the Legislature intended to exempt operators of aircraft used in dusting or spraying from liabilities imposed by Section 55-3-60. Green v. Zimmerman (S.C. 1977) 269 S.C. 535, 238 S.E.2d 323.