Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Born Slave, Union War Hero, Founder of the SC Republican Party, Congressman: The Robert Smalls Story


Written by Tony J. Spain, Palmetto Examiner
February 18, 2026

Robert Smalls was a warrior, but not by sword or rifle on an open battlefield, but by nerves of steel, skilled craftsmanship and an unbreakable will to shatter the chains of bondage. Born into in slavery in 1839 in Beaufort, South Carolina, he worked as a slave on ships in the Charleston Harbor. By the time he was twenty he had become a skilled navigator on the waters with enough skills learned to qualify him as a helmsman, or skipper, but slaves were not allowed to have these titles. His skills of navigating treacherous channels earned the trust of his slave masters that he would use in his plans to escape to freedom.

In the spring of 1862, the Civil War raged, Smalls and a crew of slaves worked on the Confederate SS Planter, a side-wheel cotton transport turned into a military dispatch and supply ship. It was common for slaves to be crewmembers on Confederate ships during the war and white officers on the ships never suspected any disobedience from their slaves.

Robert Smalls was watching, waiting and planning for his freedom. He spent time mocking, learning the movements of the white captain of the ship, memorizing hand and whistle signals. He confined his plan to other enslaved crewmen: the engineer, the firemen, the deckhands. They planned to seize the ship when the white captain and mates went ashore for the night, as they often did. Failure of their plan would no doubt mean death by hanging; success meant liberty for themselves and families.

On the night of May 12, 1862, the officers departed, leaving the SS Planter in the hands of its enslaved crew. At around 3 a.m., Smalls gives the orders, the boilers are fired building steam slowly so no alarm would arise too soon. The ship slowly and quietly sails away.

They make their way to a wharf, where wives and children, including Small’s wife Hannah and their children. They board quickly with what small belongings they could carry. The SS Planter then turns and sails toward the main channel, heading straight into the heavily fortified and guarded Fort Sumter.

Smalls donned the captain’s broad-brimmed straw hat that the white captain always wore and stood on the bridge knowing if the guards doesn’t buy his imitation, they will be captured.

As the SS Planter approached the first battery Smalls sounded the correct signal: two long whistle blasts followed by a short. The Confederate soldiers recognize everything as normal and wave them through.

Smalls makes his way through four more checkpoints calmy using the proper signals and whistle blows.
Once out of sight of the last Confederate guns, Smalls lowers the Rebel flag and hoists up a white bedsheet of truce and surrender. The SS Planter is headed straight for a Union blockade about seven miles out.

When they reach the USS Onward, Union sailors stare in astonishment at the sight of a Confederate vessel steaming straight toward them under a white flag with a black captain, crew and women and children crowding the deck. Smalls stepped forward and announced with great pride: “I have brought you the Planter and her cargo, ourselves included.”

In a single morning, Smalls had liberated sixteen from slavery, delivered a valuable warship full of information and supplies to the Union, and struck a blow against the Confederacy. Newspapers across the North and South carried the story of the “slave who stole a steamer.” Congress awarded the crew prize money for the vessel. Smalls himself met President Abraham Lincoln and would become an advisor to the Union war effort. He eventually persuades Lincoln to allow former slaves to enlist in the Union Army.

Smalls asks, “How can I expect to keep my freedom unless I fight for it?”

Smalls becomes the first African American to command a naval vessel reclaiming the now USS Planter.

After the war, Smalls moved back to Beaufort and transitioned from his wartime heroics straight into politics in the Reconstruction era founding the South Carolina Republican Party, becoming a prominent Republican figure and one of the most influential black politicians in South Carolina advocating for civil rights, public education and equal treatment under the law.

In 1868 he served as a delegate to South Carolina’s constitutional convention, where he pushed for provisions establishing the state’s first free and compulsory public school system, the first in the United States. That same year he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives, serving from 1868 to 1870.

He advanced to the South Carolina Senate in 1870, serving until 1874. He authored key legislation promoting education and rose to leadership roles, to include major general is the state militia. He also attended the Republican National Convention as a delegate in 1872 and 1876.

He won election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1874 serving the 5th and then later the 7th coastal districts for five consecutive terms until 1879.
He faced defeat in 1878 election amid rising Democrat “Redemption” efforts that were violent and aimed at suppressing black republican voters.

In 1882, he successfully contested the election of George D. Tillman proving election interference and served again in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In Congress, Smalls championed integration of U.S. Army regiments, supported legislation for equal accommodations on interstate travel and spoke out against disenfranchisement. He endured intense hostility, including a politically motivated 1877 bribery conviction (for which he received a full pardon in 1879).

His final bid for reelection in 1886 failed as Jim Crow forces consolidated power, culminating in South Carolina's 1895 constitution. Smalls attended that convention addressing the convention as a delegate.

“My race needs no special defense, for the past history of them in this country proves them to be equal on any people anywhere. All they need is an equal chance in the battle of life,” said Smalls, but he could not prevent the rollback of white supremacist Democrat “Redemption” that effectively stripped most Black voters of rights.

After leaving Congress, Smalls continued public service through a federal appointment as Collector of Customs for the Port of Beaufort from 1889 to 1913 (with a brief interruption during the Cleveland administration, restored under McKinley and later presidents).

He remained a steadfast advocate for his community until his death in 1915. Smalls, a born slave with the spirit of freedom, he embodied the promise of America and the warrior spirit needed to keep it. His legacy endures as a warrior for equality who proved that courage in battle could extend to the ballot box and the halls of Congress.

                                          **********

                                                                            


About the Author:
Tony Spain is a former candidate for Richland County Council 2020 and an award winning former military photographer and journalist while in the Public Affairs Office for the U.S. Army. His photos and writing have been published in numerous publications such as The Commercial News, Danville, Ill.; The Paraglide, Fort Bragg, N.C.; Soldier of Fortune Magazine; The State Newspaper, Columbia, S.C., FITSNews and more.

 He lives in Columbia, S.C. 


                                                                       **********

 What Say You? Got something you'd like to say? Letter to the Editor (Guest Column), praises, criticism, hate mail, news story tip or just want to say, howdy. Send them to Tony@palmettoexaminer.com


Tuesday, February 17, 2026

Scout Motors was never a good deal and could be getting worse for South Carolina taxpayers and small businesses




Written by Tony J. Spain, Palmetto Examiner
February 17, 2026


In May 2022, Scout Motors, a newly launched subsidy Volkwagon, announced plans to bring back the iconic International Harvester Scout and another truck model as electric vehicles to be built in the U.S. at an unannounced location with plans for production to begin in 2026. That’s code for we just need a sucker partner to go into business with.

In March 2023, the German automaker found their sucker, the State of South Carolina. Scout announced they would invest $2 billion and build a state-of-the art manufacturing facility on 1,100 acres in Blythewood, S.C. that would create 4,000 permanent jobs and produce 200,000 vehicles a year, or roughly 40 vehicles every hour.

South Carolina had to compete with other states for the project, Scout Motors looked at 74 sites around the country before picking Blythewood for its first-ever manufacturing plant. Scout Motors CEO Scott Keogh said the company had chosen South Carolina because of their preparedness and readiness to act.

 “What made it work without a doubt was the state was ready to go,” Keogh told The State paper. “The bell rang, and they were sprinting.”

And boy were they sprinting! The state legislator rammed a $1.3 billion deal in incentives, that included $400 million in cash for site preparation, through the legislator in a week and had it on Governor Henry McMaster's desk for signature to close the deal in 60 days.

According to a report acquired by the Palmetto Examiner regarding an investigation initiated by a complaint to the South Carolina Ethics Commission, alleging Scout Motors of engaging in illegal lobbying related to the incentive package of more than $1 billion that was awarded to Scout Motors. The report showed the deal was approximately $300 to $500 million higher than what other states typically provide for comparable projects. The investigation did not uncover any evidence of misconduct or criminal activity; however, it provided valuable insight into the desires of lawmakers to cut back room deals that occurred behind closed doors out of the public view.  

Even Richland County offered up their own incentive plan worth more than an estimated $4 million dollars which included a 40-year tax abatement through a Fee-in Lieu-of-Tax agreement allows for Scout Motors’ property to be assessed at a tax rate of 4%. That’s 6.5% less than the typical 10.5% rate manufacturing property is assessed at in South Carolina.
Scout also will get a 50% tax break through making investments in infrastructure, a set up known as an infrastructure tax credit.

Along with tax breaks, Richland County, the town of Blythewood and the city of Columbia agreed to upgrades to a Blythewood Fire Station, Childcare support for eligible Scout employees, including stipends and access to an onsite childcare facility. And contributions to infrastructure improvements such as road widening and more.

In Comparison to other states handing out corporate welfare to electric vehicle manufacturing, Georgia is putting up $1.8 billion in incentives to attract Hyundai. North Carolina is spending $1.2 billion for car manufacture VinFast, and Kentucky and Tennessee provided $1 billion for a new Ford plant for electric vehicles and batteries.

“These are the types of numbers in this very competitive world that the states are investing because they know these facilities are going to be here for the long term, and they’re going to provide tremendous positive economic impact,” South Carolina Secretary of Commerce Harry Lightsey said during a press briefing in March 2023.

The South Carolina Department of Commerce has also been working to sell the deal to the public with the promise of economic boom and jobs. In the same press briefing Lightsey said the project was expected to generate $15 billion worth of economic impact by 2029, referencing a study done by the University of South Carolina economist Joey Von Nessen.

“So we’ll already have a return on that investment as the governor said, and that’s within three years of when they start their production,” Lightsey said.

But not everyone agrees with the optimistic outlook. Greg Leroy, founder and director of Good Jobs First, a policy group that researches economic development subsidies, says as billion-dollar incentive deals for electric vehicles continue to pile up, states won’t be able to recoup the money they put in up front calling the deals in Georgia and North Carolina “terrible precedents” for future electric vehicle manufacturing subsidies.

In South Carolina’s case, Leroy said spending $1.2 billion in exchange for 4,000 jobs isn’t good value.

“At that price, South Carolina taxpayers can never break even,” Leroy said.

And those statements were made in 2023, when federal legislation was highly favorable and supportive of the expanding world of electric vehicles with government tax breaks.

In 2022, then President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law. One of its provisions, a “clean vehicle credit” awarded up to $7,500 for purchasing a new electric vehicle. The program was set to last until the end of 2032, but President Donald Trump, signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July which ended the credit on September 30, 2025.

As a result, sales of electric vehicles skyrocketed in August and September as people interested in them rushed to beat the tax credit deadline, but then plummeted once the credit expired.

Electric vehicle sales plunged 74% in October after the expiration of the federal tax credit marking one of the sharpest short-term declines in the market’s recent history and for the first time in a decade, electric vehicle registrations have fallen in 2025.

Also under the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted emissions rules that would effectively require more than half of all new vehicles produced by 2032 to be electric, but the agency rescinded those rules last month after the return of President Donald Trump.

That’s probably bad news for companies like Scout Motors and raises the question, Is the buzz around American electrical vehicle market just a creation of government policy?

The writing was on the wall for General Motors who holds the largest inventory of electric vehicles in the U.S. Wall Street Journal reporter Sharon Terlep reported in October 2025 that General Motors was booking a $1.6 billion charge on their electric car business and reducing their manufacturing capacity of electric vehicles as demand sinks.

“In a regulatory filing, the company said that EV sales are expected to fall with the end of government-funded subsidies and regulatory mandates that fueled EV growth,” according to the report.  

That’s a monumental 180-degree spin within just a few years. As early as 2021, General Motors CEO Mary Barra announced the car manufacture was phasing out all gas-burning vehicles by 2035. That’s a 180-degree shift within just a few years.

Ford also announced in August 2024, they were shifting away from electric vehicles after its electric vehicle division had lost $12 billion in two years according to the New York Times.

“The demise of the tax credit will probably bring the party to an end,” Neal E. Boudette, veteran auto industry reporter, wrote in the New York Times, September 25, 2025. “Sales of electric models are expected to plummet in the last three months of the year and then remain sluggish for some time.”

Scout Motors estimates that the new factory will be capable of building  up to 200,000 vehicles annually, or roughly 40 vehicles every hour, but now the question is whether there will even be a demand for the product output once production, that is now behind schedule, actually begins?

Scout Motors had hoped to begin production this year, but has yet to build a single vehicle and now says they hope to begin production by the end of 2027. Also, the project is now more than $150 million over budget.

“If the General Assembly does not agree to pony up the additional cash in the next state budget, the state Commerce Department would have to tell contractors working on the site that it doesn’t have the money to pay them,” Jessica Holdman of the South Carolina Daily Gazette wrote last month.

“And we would not have the money to pay them for several years under our regular funding,” Harry Lightsey, South Carolina’s economic development chief, told legislators.

Holdman also noted that in the original deal, the state and county governments “agreed to contract and pay for all of the mass grading work at no cost to the company” as well as “the cost of all associated environmental requirements.

The environmental requirements that included wetland mitigation and a $3 million dollar fine to Richland County have accounted for nearly half of the budget overrun.

Cost overruns are not unusual on projects of this magnitude, but those costs should be for the companies to bear, not taxpayers, that’s part of the gamble of doing business. South Carolina officials apparently negotiated that away and decided taxpayers would assume that risk.

Scout Motors should take a loan, look for other investors or use cash reserves. Small businesses rarely, if ever, get this kind of treatment, they just help foot the bill along with taxpayers.

And it’s not like Scout Motors didn’t have the resources available to absorb the extra cost. Parent company Volkswagen reported more than $47.6 billion in cash on hand in their 2024 Annual Report.

This news comes right after Scout Motors snubbed South Carolina for Charlotte, N.C., to locate their corporate headquarters and 1,200 high-paying white-collar jobs. One has to wonder why the details of the headquarters weren’t guaranteed and negotiated in the massive billion-dollar deal to begin with.

When Scout Motors first announced its South Carolina factory, they had more reasons to be optimistic; given the dip in EV sales, it may have to scale back its ambitions. If that happens, it’s not just Scout Motors and Volkswagen who will be on the hook, but the South Carolina taxpayer and small businesses, who have been on the hook all along in this bad deal.

Scout Motors found their sucker. This was never a good deal for South Carolina's small businesses and taxpayers who will be left with the cost of holding the bag. 

 

**********

About the Author: Tony Spain is a former candidate for Richland County Council 2020 and an award winning former military photographer and journalist while in the Public Affairs Office for the U.S. Army. His photos and writing have been published in numerous publications such as The Commercial News, Danville, Ill.; The Paraglide, Fort Bragg, N.C.; Soldier of Fortune Magazine; The State Newspaper, Columbia, S.C., FITSNews and more.

 He lives in Columbia, S.C.

 

 **********

What Say You? Got something you'd like to say? Letter to the Editor (Guest Column), praises, criticism, hate mail, news story tip or just want to say, howdy. Send them to Tony@palmettoexaminer.com


Friday, February 6, 2026

Senators reach unanimous agreement on strengthening SC’s DUI laws

South Carolina State House, (PE photo/Tony J. Spain)

by Jessica Holdman, SC Daily Gazette
February 5, 2026

COLUMBIA — Senators unanimously passed an overhaul of state laws against driving under the influence in an effort to reduce deaths on South Carolina’s roads.

Wednesday’s vote wrapped up days of debate on one of Senate leadership’s top priorities this session. The measure, fast tracked to the floor on the session’s opening day, could bring the biggest changes to the state’s often loosely enforced DUI laws in decades.

Namely, the bipartisan legislation adds a layer of penalties when the intoxicated driver injures, rather than kills, someone to the point they lose consciousness or have to undergo anesthesia to be treated. It also toughens punishments, removes tripwires where charges get dismissed over videotaping issues and prods people to submit to breathalyzer and blood testing.

“We’re really coming down harder on repeat offenders,” Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey told reporters. “And we are making it more uncomfortable even for the first offense.

“The idea is to include enough of a deterrent effect that people aren’t going to want to do it,” the Edgefield Republican added.

South Carolina has one of the nation’s highest drunken driving fatality rates, according to a 2024 report from MADD’s state chapter. That includes 474 DUI deaths in 2022, the fifth-highest number overall and worst rate based on population, according to the report.

Nearly half of all fatal crashes in the state involve a drunken driver, according to the South Carolina Department of Public Safety.

Meanwhile, more than half of all charges for driving under the influence are pleaded down to lesser crimes, attorneys in the Senate said.

More prosecution and tougher penalties

The proposal seeks to combat that by mandating prosecutors handle court proceedings for even the lowest-level DUI cases. Across most of the state, those cases are prosecuted by police officers in traffic court.

“Candidly, it’s not a fair fight,” Massey said. “They are trained law enforcement officers. It’s unfair to expect them to go up against seasoned criminal defense lawyers. And I think if you have prosecutors involved there, you’re going to get a better resolution of cases.”

And while legislators cannot mandate breathalyzer or blood testing, those who refuse face steeper penalties on the back end if convicted.

Those who decline voluntary testing already have to give up their driver’s license while their case makes its way through the court system — officially, anyway. They can still rather easily get a temporary alcohol license, which is supposed to enable them to get to and from work. But it doesn’t actually prevent them from driving other places. The result is that people often refuse to take the test.

The bill adds a requirement for a temporary license: Drivers must install equipment, known as an ignition interlock device, that prevents a car from starting until the person blows into the machine to prove they’re not intoxicated.

“It’s inconvenient, embarrassing and costly,” Massey said.

The ignition interlock device would also be installed for drivers who avoid prosecution by going through pre-trial intervention, a program for first-time offenders that keeps their record clean if they successfully complete it. Participants would have to blow into a device for six months to start their vehicle. Other program additions include a DUI impact panel, where they’d hear from the victims and family members of people hurt or killed in drunken driving accidents.

“I fear that we’re not really teaching the lessons that we need to teach people,” Sen. Greg Hembree, R-Little River, said of the program.

“The goal is that is when they finish, they go, ‘That really stunk. That was no fun at all. That was aggravating. I’m calling an Uber,'” said the former prosecutor.

Incentivizing a voluntary test

Police need a warrant or consent for a blood test. In 2023, the state Supreme Court ruled mandatory blood draws conducted without a warrant in felony DUI cases are unconstitutional, violating a person’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The bill seeks to incentivize voluntary breath and blood testing through harsher penalties. People who refuse would face a one- to four-year suspension of their drivers’ license, depending on how many times they’ve been previously convicted. That’s up from six to 15 months under existing law.

Sen. Margie Bright Matthews said people shouldn’t have to make officers’ jobs easy. She questioned whether the enhanced penalty infringes on due process rights through coercion, especially for people originally pulled over for a different reason.

“There are good police officers and bad police officers,” the Colleton County Democrat said. “If you stop somebody, you need to prove it. Not them prove themselves.”

But blood tests become particularly important with intoxicants that aren’t alcohol and don’t show up on a breath test, Massey said.

“Right now, almost half of all DUI arrests result in a refusal,” he said. “So we have to change that penalty structure to encourage people to take the test.”

Advocates celebrate

Antania Mingo-Lewis, who says she lost a leg because of a drunken driver, speaks during a news conference on strengthening DUI laws in Columbia, South Carolina on Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2026.
(Photo by Adrian Ashford/SC Daily Gazette)

Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s South Carolina chapter cheered senators’ fast-tracking of the bill, which following a perfunctory vote Thursday, will head to the House.

Antania Mingo-Lewis shared her own tragic story during a press conference ahead of the vote. Her life was forever changed, she said, by an intoxicated driver who left her needing a leg amputation and killed her 11-year-old child.

“I still deal with that loss daily,” said Mingo-Lewis.

The driver who hit them was initially charged with driving under the influence causing both great bodily injury and death but eventually pleaded guilty to a hit and run causing great bodily injury and death.

“I don’t feel like I got justice,” Mingo-Lewis said.

Sen. Tom Davis, the bill’s main sponsor, called the bill’s speed through the Senate “extraordinary.”

After moving from subcommittee to the Senate floor on opening day, passage with unanimous agreement took just two weeks, which is impressive for a chamber that prides itself as the deliberative body. And that included a canceled day and late-start day due to wintry weather, as well as a short day due to the State of the State address. With more than three months remaining in the legislative session, Davis is optimistic about the bill’s chances in the House.

“I want to be standing here in May celebrating a bill signing by Henry McMaster that, for the first time that I’ve been involved in politics, results in meaningful reforms to our DUI laws,” said Davis, who was Gov. Mark Sanford’s chief of staff and legislative liaison before voters first sent him to the Senate 18 years ago.

The last major changes to DUI laws, in 2008, came after Davis’ former boss publicly accused senators of blocking the legislation.

‘Not always black and white’

Senators also acknowledged, for first-time offenders, that a terrible mistake upends the lives of drivers as well as victims.

“It’s time we do something,” said Sen. Russell Ott. “There are some that think we have to really, really, really be hard, as hard as we possibly can, on those that are caught driving under the influence … But it’s not always so black and white. There’s a lot of gray in between sometimes.”

The St. Matthews Democrat told a story of a family friend, who in 2016, drove while drunk and got in an accident that killed the man’s girlfriend. He pleaded guilty, taking full responsibility and throwing himself to the mercy of the court. Still, to this day he’s considered a violent criminal.

In prison, that violent designation for a felony DUI resulting in a death meant he could not participate in work or education programs.

“That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me,” Ott said. “I would think that we’d want them to be productive members of society.”


Left to right, South Carolina Sen. Russell
Ott, D-St. Matthews, huddles with Senate
Minority Leader Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, on 
the Senate floor Tuesday, Feb 3, 2026, during
a debate over reforms to the state's DUI laws.
(Photo by Jessica Holdman/SC Daily Gazette)
So under the bill, at the time of sentencing, a judge may suspend the violent offense designation and the state Department of Corrections may allow the person to participate in work programs, education, and rehabilitation. However, the person won’t be able to use those programs for credit to buy down the time they serve in prison.

Those already convicted and in prison also can make petitions if the victim’s family consents, and it’s the only violent offense on their record.

Left out of the version passed Wednesday were felony penalties for certain cases of reckless driving, for example a person who causes an accident while drag racing and severely injures another person or their property.

Opponents argued it mixed reckless driving with intoxicated driving and could lead to police tacking on unnecessary charges.

Sen. Tom Fernandez, who is an attorney, shared the story of a client — an 18-year-old man — who missed the sign for a 10 mph drop in the speed limit. An elderly couple pulled out in front of him, cutting him off, and a bar he had mounted on his Jeep to keep it from tipping when off-roading sliced through the car killing the couple and their adult daughter.

“The (man’s) family called me crying, saying that their son was just arrested and charged with reckless homicide, three counts,” the Summerville Republican said. “I went into the courtroom. I asked for a bond and the family of the victims asked for mercy on the young man. Highway Patrol instead said no.”

It took 4½ years before the charges were dropped, Fernandez said. He called it an example of how enhanced penalties can go wrong and drag someone down personally and professionally.

Work remains


Amid the debate, Massey also warned senators there’s likely more work to be done in the coming years when it comes to South Carolina’s alcohol laws.

The Legislature passed a law last year intended to relieve bars and restaurants facing massive liquor-related insurance premiums. But since the measure went into effect at the beginning of the year, early signs point to the law falling short of its intended outcome.

“The feedback that we’re getting early on is (insurance companies) are looking at it and saying, ‘this ain’t gonna work,’ which I think should not be a surprise to anybody who was really paying attention,” said Massey, who warned last year that the compromise wouldn’t do much for premiums.

It gave bars and restaurants options, as well as requirements, for reducing their minimum insurance coverage for serving alcohol. It also reformed state rules for personal injury lawsuits and how financial responsibility in a lawsuit are doled out among all those involved.

Under state law known as “joint and several liability,” businesses could be required to pay the full amount of a court-ordered award even if they we’re just 1% responsible for whatever happened.

Personal injury lawyers, including those in the Legislature, argued the law needs to ensure victims can be fully compensated for their loss following a tragedy. But if plaintiffs only sue whoever or whatever can pay the biggest award, as often happens, business owners said it forces insurance payouts for things that aren’t their fault.

“We got about halfway there in the newest law update,” said Andrew Reina, CEO of The Ragnar Group.

Under the new law, bars and restaurants bear responsibility if they “knowingly” serve alcohol to someone who is intoxicated.

But Reina, an insurance broker who sits on the board of the South Carolina Bar and Tavern Association, said major insurance carriers aren’t likely to return to doing business in the state until they see how judges and juries interpret the new standard. That could take two or three years.

“Insurance carriers, they’re like a big cruise ship,” he said. “It takes them forever to change course and it’s still debatable whether the new law will have any impact or not.”

Reina said the golden standard that would make insurance companies more likely to return is if liability was based on ‘visible’ intoxication instead of ‘knowing.” It’s easier to judge by reviewing security footage.

“If a bar serves someone who is staggering, visibly intoxicated, they 100% should be held liable,” Reina said “That is the definition of negligence. It’s the middle ground where you’re leaving it up to a jury interpreting and weird things happen when you do that.”

Reporter Adrian Ashford contributed to this report.


**********

About the Author:


Jessica Holdman is a journalist for the SC Daily Gazette. She was previously a business reporter for the Post and Courier.


SC Daily Gazette is part of States Newsrooms, the nation’s largest state focused nonprofit news organization supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. SC Daily Gazette maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seanna Adcox for questions: Info@scdaily.gazette.com


**********
What Say You? Got something you'd like to say? Letter to the Editor (Guest Column), praises, criticism, hate mail, news story tip or just want to say, howdy. Send them to Tony@palmettoexaminer.com

Born Slave, Union War Hero, Founder of the SC Republican Party, Congressman: The Robert Smalls Story

Written by Tony J. Spain, Palmetto Examiner February 18, 2026 Robert Smalls was a warrior, but not by sword or rifle on an open battlefield,...