Lawyers are filing their last round of lawsuits against bars and restaurants for drunk-driving accidents that will be tried under rules lawmakers deemed problematic and changed earlier this year.
Insurance costs for restaurants were cited by Gov. Henry McMaster and legislators when they pushed a tort-reform package this year. They blamed a system in which a restaurant could be found 1% liable for a crash but still be on the hook for the entirety of a verdict.
That will no longer be the case come Jan. 1. A look around the state showed lawsuits filed in the final months of the old rules could be very expensive for defendants.
One such lawsuit targets three bars and a South Carolina liquor distributor that allegedly encourages employees to imbibe its products, arguing it should pay for the death of a woman killed in an automobile crash with an employee who had a history of drunk-driving arrests.
Southern Crown Partners knew or should have known employee Steven Liebler had a problem with alcohol and was a risk to others on the road, argues William Young, the son of Kathryn Young. Kathryn was killed after Liebler’s car crossed the center line and smashed head-on into hers in September 2025.
The salesman had “a notable and worrisome history of issues with alcohol addiction, alcohol abuse, and driving while intoxicated,” Young’s lawyers said in a complaint filed in Richland County. The distributor also is liable because it “permits and/or encourages employees” to consume alcohol as part of their job, the plaintiff said.
Liebler’s record included at least four prior arrests for driving under the influence including one in March of this year. At the time of the accident, he was using a temporary license with limited driving privileges, the plaintiff said. Southern Crown didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
On Sept. 6, 2025, Liebler left his house in his personal vehicle to attend to a broken keg tap at the Carolina Ale House, a Southern Crown customer. After completing the service call, sales receipts indicate Liebler spent several hours drinking at the Ale House before moving on to two more bars, where he had at least four Rumple Minze shots. After paying a $13.98 tab at the Ramblin Mule around 10:30 p.m., Liebler drove away, crossed the median and crashed into Young’s vehicle at 10:57 p.m.
Liebler was killed in the accident and Young died a few weeks later. Liebler’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident was 0.31%, or more than triple the maximum under South Carolina law. An opened bottle of Row 94 whiskey was found in his car.
“Southern Crown was expressly aware of Liebler’s issues with alcohol addiction, alcohol abuse, and drinking and driving,” the plaintiff said. Because the evening started with an employment-related service call, the plaintiff said Liebler acted “in furtherance of Southern Crown’s business interests,” making the distributor liable for negligent hiring and supervision.
The plaintiff also sued the Ale House, Ramblin Mule and LJ’s Par and Grill, which he said contributed to the accident by serving an already intoxicated Liebler.
A lawsuit in Spartanburg County blames Miyako Sushi and Main Street Pub and Eatery for the death of Mark Grigorchuk, who was killed in a collision caused by Stepan Stepanovic Grek in April.
It is alleged that Grek first consumed alcoholic beverages at Miyako Sushi then moved on to the Main Street Pub for more. Grigorchuk sat in the passenger’s seat of Grek’s car as they drove away around 1:30 a.m., and the lawsuit says Grek sped up to 75 mph in a 35 mph zone and struck a tree.
Grek attempted to flee but returned. Two hours after the accident, his blood-alcohol level was still .06.
Grigorchuk was 24 years old. Grek has been charged with Felony DUI resulting in death.
South Carolina courts, like courts in other states, wrestle with lawsuits involving employees who cause accidents after drinking on the job, or after work is done. The test typically is whether the employee was driving a company vehicle and engaged in activities that further the interest of the employer. When, as in one often-cited case, the employee “is on a lark of his own,” the employer may be off the hook.
