SC Supreme Court Grants Civil Immunity in Castle Doctrine Self-Defense Case

SC Supreme Court ruled self-defense criminal immunity includes civil immunity under the castle doctrine.

On June 11, 2026, the South Carolina Supreme Court clarified that a person granted criminal immunity under the state's castle doctrine is also immune from civil lawsuits related to self-defense shootings. The court's ruling involved a grocery store employee who fatally shot a customer in self-defense and was previously afforded criminal immunity.

This decision interprets the Protection of Persons and Property Act, which was enacted in 2006 to codify the common law castle doctrine in South Carolina. The law extends protections not only to a person’s home but also to their occupied vehicle and place of business, as noted by the South Carolina General Assembly: "It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business."

The Act explicitly states that use of deadly force under its provisions is justified and the user is immune from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits, except in cases where the force was used against law enforcement officers performing official duties. The recent court ruling reinforces this dual immunity, setting a significant precedent by affirming that individuals legally acting in self-defense under the castle doctrine cannot be held liable in civil court.

This precedent impacts how future cases involving self-defense shootings are approached, limiting civil actions against those who lawfully use force to protect themselves or their business. It solidifies the legislative intent to protect law-abiding citizens who act reasonably to defend their homes, vehicles, and places of business.