South Carolina
South Carolina: Court Clarifies Limits of Employer Liability for Workplace Use of Force
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in SC |
EFFECTIVE JUN 10, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Moore v. Green’s Grocery, LLC, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed dismissal of a civil lawsuit against an employer after its employee fatally shot a customer during a workplace confrontation.
The case arose from a September 2020 incident at a Charleston grocery store. A customer entered the store to purchase a phone charger, and a heated confrontation ensued between the customer and an employee (the store owner’s nephew). The dispute escalated to the point that the customer’s conduct placed the employee in reasonable fear of imminent serious injury, and the employee shot and killed the customer. The employee was charged with murder, but following an immunity hearing, the circuit court found that the customer’s actions gave the employee the statutory right to use lethal force under South Carolina’s Protection of Persons and Property Act (the state’s “castle doctrine” statute). The murder charge was dismissed, and the state did not appeal.
The customer’s estate subsequently sued the grocery store and its owner, seeking to hold the employer liable under theories of negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, independent of the employee’s personal justification for using force. The circuit court dismissed the suit, concluding that the unchallenged immunity order established the employee was not at fault, and that the employer could not be held liable where the underlying act was lawful. The state supreme court agreed.
The court reasoned that when an employee’s use of force is determined to be lawful and justified, there is no “underlying wrongful conduct” to which any independent negligent acts of the employer could relate. The court distinguished its prior decisions in Woodell by Allen v. Marion School District One and Greenville Memorial Auditorium v. Martin, in which employers were not shielded from liability despite third-party criminal acts, because in those cases the plaintiffs’ claims rested on the employers’ own negligence tied to wrongful underlying conduct. Here, by contrast, the court explained that the employee’s conduct “was not criminal—nor was it wrongful in any respect.” Because there was no wrongful act at the foundation of the case, independent negligence claims against the employer could not attach.
While the decision reflects a win for this company, employers generally should recognize that the outcome here depended heavily on the specific facts, including an unchallenged immunity order finding that the shooting was justified. Different circumstances could yield a different result. At bottom, this case serves as an important reminder for employers to review their workplace violence prevention procedures, including de-escalation training, clear use-of-force policies, and protocols for handling confrontational customers.
Action Items
- Review and update workplace violence prevention procedures, as applicable.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase