The Phone Call That Changes Everything
We have sat across from too many families in rooms like yours to dress this up.
A man went to stay at a motel on Bush River Road in Columbia, South Carolina, on or about May 7, 2026. He did not come home. The Richland County Coroner’s Office later identified him. What we know from the public record is that he died from gunshot wounds on the premises of a commercial lodging property, and that Richland County and Columbia law enforcement responded that morning to investigate the circumstances of the fatal shooting. The case remains an active criminal investigation. The motel’s responsibility, the security decisions it made and the ones it didn’t, the prior calls for service at that address, the lighting that night, the cameras, the locks, the staff on duty, and the warnings that may or may not have reached the front desk are all questions that the criminal investigation may never answer for the family. They are precisely the questions a civil negligent-security case is designed to answer.
We wrote this page for one reader. You are sitting in a living room in Columbia, or West Columbia, or Cayce, or Irmo, or somewhere in the Midlands, holding a phone, trying to figure out what the next 30 days look like. You are trying to figure out who is going to pay for the funeral, who is going to call you back, and whether anyone besides the person who pulled the trigger can be held responsible for what happened to your loved one. We cannot fix what has already happened. We can tell you what the law in South Carolina allows you to do, what the motel’s lawyers are going to do the moment they read this page, and what the first moves have to be to preserve the case before the proof walks out the back door.
We work on contingency, which means you pay us nothing up front and we don’t get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free, the conversation is private, and the first call is on us. If we are not the right fit for your case we will tell you who is.
Under South Carolina’s wrongful death statute, SC Code § 15-51-10, “Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of another, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not resulted, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the person who would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured.”
That sentence is the doorway. It says that if a person or company would have owed your loved one a duty of reasonable care while he was alive, and that duty was breached, and the breach caused the death, then the law gives the family the right to sue that person or company in civil court for damages. The criminal case answers who pulled the trigger. The civil case under § 15-51-10 answers who let it happen.
Who Can Be Held Responsible: The Motel, Its Parent, the Management Company
A motel is almost never just one company. The name on the sign is the brand. The building is owned by one entity, often a real estate LLC. The property is operated by a different entity, often a franchisee or a property management company. The staff at the front desk are usually employees of the management company. The security guard, if one exists, may work for a third company. The corporate insurance, the corporate money, the operating budget, the security policies, and the cameras and locks in the building are often controlled by entities that the family has never heard of before.
This is the shell game, and it is the first thing a family needs to understand. The motel on Bush River Road is, in the eyes of the law, a stack of separate entities. The brand on the sign does not automatically mean the brand is responsible. The owner of the building does not automatically mean the building owner is responsible. The operating company that hired the night clerk does not automatically mean the operating company is responsible. Each entity in the stack will point at the others and say, “Talk to them, not us.” The job of the family and their lawyers is to figure out, before any lawsuit is filed, which entity in the stack actually controlled security, actually set the budget, actually decided which cameras to install, actually responded to the prior incidents, and actually has the money to pay a verdict.
South Carolina follows the respondeat superior rule, which makes an employer liable for the negligent acts of its employees committed within the scope of their employment. The motel is liable for what its own staff did or failed to do, including failing to call the police when they should have, failing to warn guests about known dangers, and failing to maintain security measures that the property’s own management knew were needed. The motel can also be liable for the negligent acts of independent contractors it hired to perform security services, in cases where the security contractor’s negligence is fairly attributable to the motel itself.
Beyond respondeat superior, a motel can be directly liable for its own corporate negligence: the corporate decision to cut the security budget, the corporate decision to ignore a pattern of prior incidents, the corporate decision to install dummy cameras instead of working ones, the corporate decision to staff the night shift with one person instead of two. Corporate negligence is the company’s own conduct, and it is reached through discovery — through the emails, the memos, the budgets, the meeting minutes, the prior settlement agreements, and the depositions of the people who run the property.
The first step in a negligent-security case is identifying the right defendants. That identification is what the first weeks of investigation are for. The investigation is built on public records (the corporation’s filings with the South Carolina Secretary of State), on county property records (who owns the land and the building), on business license records, on the brand’s own franchise disclosures, and on the motel’s own internal records once a preservation letter goes out.
What the Family Can Recover: Honest Numbers, No Promises
The value of a negligent-security motel shooting case depends on the strength of the liability proof, the extent of the prior-incident record, the corporate behavior after the shooting, the ages and earning capacities of the deceased and the beneficiaries, the insurance limits available, and the venue (Richland County juries can be plaintiff-friendly in motel and premises-liability cases, but every jury is different, and no one can promise what a jury will do).
Based on the published case-value framework for negligent-security motel shooting cases, the range for a documented fatality in a premises-liability setting, with a typical prior-incident record and a standard compensatory package, runs from approximately $750,000 on the low end to approximately $4,500,000 on the high end. These numbers are not a guarantee, and they do not include the value of the survival action, which can add a meaningful amount depending on the conscious-pain-and-suffering evidence. Punitive damages, if the facts support them, are tracked separately under South Carolina’s Title 15 limits.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The actual value of any case is driven by the specific evidence we develop in the investigation, the specific coverage tower of the motel and its parent, and the specific jury pool we end up in. We will give you a more specific range once we know the facts of your case.
How the Defense Will Try to Defeat the Case
A skilled defense team will run a four-pronged attack on a negligent-security motel shooting case. The attack is predictable, and knowing the attack in advance is the best way to defend against it.
Play One: The Independent-Criminal-Act Defense
The defense will argue that the shooting was the unforeseeable, independent criminal act of a third party, that the motel had no control over the shooter, and that the motel cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of strangers. This is the standard defense in every negligent-security case, and it has a standard answer: the defense is wrong when the criminal act was foreseeable. Foreseeability is proven by prior similar incidents, by calls for service, by crime statistics for the area, by industry warnings about motel violence, and by the motel’s own internal communications about the dangers it knew about. The defense’s independent-criminal-act argument is a closing argument, not a winning argument, when the prior-incident record is strong.
Play Two: The Avoidable-Consequence Defense
The defense will argue that even if the security was inadequate, the death was caused by the shooter’s criminal act, not by the security failure, and that the security failure was not the proximate cause of the death. This is a proximate-cause argument, and the answer to it is the same as the answer to the independent-criminal-act argument: the security failure created the opportunity for the violence, and the opportunity was foreseeable. South Carolina law requires that the defendant’s negligence be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, and a foreseeable security failure that creates the opportunity for a fatal shooting is a substantial factor.
Play Three: The Comparative-Fault Allocation
The defense will try to push the deceased’s share of fault above 50% to invoke South Carolina’s modified comparative fault bar. The defense will argue that the deceased was in a high-crime area, was associating with dangerous people, was engaged in criminal activity himself, or failed to take reasonable steps to protect himself. Every percentage point above 50% kills the case. The fight over fault allocation is won in discovery and at trial, and it is won with the evidence: the deceased’s character witnesses, the deceased’s own background, the absence of any prior criminal record, the absence of any prior incidents at the motel, and the absence of any warning signs the deceased ignored.
Play Four: The Quick-Settlement Pressure
Within days of the shooting, an insurance adjuster or a defense lawyer will contact the family. The adjuster will be friendly, will express sympathy, and will offer a small amount of money in exchange for a full release of all claims. The adjuster will frame the offer as a way to avoid the cost and stress of a lawsuit. The family should not sign anything. The offer is almost always a fraction of the case’s true value, and the release the adjuster wants the family to sign is a permanent bar to any future claim, including claims the family does not yet know exist. We tell every family the same thing: do not talk to the insurance company, do not sign anything, and call us before you do anything else.
Why a Motel-Specific Negligent-Security Team, Not a General PI Firm
Negligent-security motel cases are not the same as car-wreck cases, and the lawyer who runs them cannot be a general practitioner who has tried one of everything. The discovery in a negligent-security motel case is unique: the corporate budgets, the prior incident reports, the franchise disclosure documents, the brand’s own safety standards, the staffing matrices, the camera specifications, the lighting specifications, the lock specifications, and the prior lawsuits and prior claims. The depositions are unique: the corporate regional manager who decided what security measures to install, the property general manager who decided what security measures to actually implement, the front-desk clerk who was on duty the night of the shooting, the security vendor who provided the guard (if any), the corporate risk manager who decided what incidents to report to the brand, and the corporate lawyer who decided what to do about the prior claims. The trial themes are unique: the corporate decision to put profits over guest safety, the corporate decision to ignore a pattern of violence, the corporate decision to keep accepting guests’ money while cutting the security budget, and the corporate decision to leave the property vulnerable to exactly the kind of attack that killed the family’s loved one.
We have built our practice around negligent-security and catastrophic-injury cases. We are not a volume firm. We do not handle every type of case. We handle the cases where the corporate defendant made a decision that put a person in harm’s way, and where the corporate defendant has the money to pay a verdict that makes the family whole. We have the resources to take a motel case to trial against a national brand’s insurance company, and we have the relationships with the experts we need — security consultants, lighting engineers, forensic video analysts, prior-incident researchers, and forensic economists — to build a case the defense cannot ignore.
The Prior-Incident Record: The Spine of the Foreseeability Case
The single most important piece of evidence in a negligent-security motel case is the prior-incident record. The prior-incident record proves that violence on the property was foreseeable, and the foreseeability proof is what turns a sympathetic case into a winning case. The prior-incident record has three sources, and we pull all three.
The first source is the police CAD history for the address. The Richland County Sheriff’s Department and the Columbia Police Department maintain CAD records, and those records show every call for service at the address over a multi-year period. The calls include disturbances, fights, prior shootings, drug activity, prostitution, robberies, and any other criminal activity at the address. We request the CAD history through the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, and we subpoena the full records once the lawsuit is filed.
The second source is the motel’s own internal incident reports. The motel is required to keep incident reports for every guest complaint, every police response, every disturbance, every eviction, and every injury on the property. The internal incident reports are often far more detailed than the police records, because the motel is documenting its own conduct and its own response. The internal incident reports are the gold of the foreseeability case, and we demand them in the preservation letter.
The third source is the corporate prior-claims record. Every prior lawsuit, every prior insurance claim, and every prior settlement against the motel or its parent is discoverable, and every prior claim is a piece of evidence that the motel knew about the danger. The prior-claims record is the kind of evidence that turns a single-incident case into a pattern case, and the family needs a lawyer who knows how to find it, demand it, and use it.
The Discovery Fight
Discovery in a negligent-security motel case is a war, and the war is fought over three categories of evidence. The first category is the prior-incident record, and the defense will resist producing it on grounds of relevance, privilege, and burden. The second category is the corporate budgets and the corporate communications about the security program, and the defense will resist producing it on grounds of relevance and privilege. The third category is the corporate insurance, and the defense will resist producing it on grounds of privilege and bad-faith exposure.
We have the tools to win the discovery war. We file motions to compel. We seek sanctions for spoliation when records are destroyed. We depose the corporate representatives under oath, and we pin them to their prior testimony when they try to change their story at trial. The discovery phase of a negligent-security motel case typically takes 12 to 24 months, and the family needs a lawyer who is willing to spend that time fighting for every document.
The Coverage Tower
The money in a negligent-security motel case comes from the motel’s insurance, and the motel’s insurance is almost always the property owner’s commercial general liability policy and the operating company’s commercial general liability policy. In some cases, the brand itself carries an excess policy that responds when the property-level policy is exhausted. In some cases, the security vendor carries its own policy that responds to the vendor’s negligence. The total coverage tower is what determines the realistic ceiling on the family’s recovery, and the coverage tower is built through discovery.
We send a coverage demand letter to every insurer we identify, and we demand the full policy limits where the facts support a policy-limits demand. The insurer will sometimes respond with a policy-limits tender, particularly where the prior-incident record is strong and the corporate behavior after the shooting is bad. The insurer will sometimes resist, and we file a bad-faith claim under South Carolina’s unfair claims settlement practices law to force the insurer to pay.
The Comparative-Fault Defense in Detail
South Carolina’s modified comparative fault rule is the defense’s single best weapon in a negligent-security motel case. The defense will argue that the deceased was more than 50% at fault, and the defense will make the argument in a way that sounds reasonable: the deceased knew the area was dangerous, the deceased chose to be there, the deceased chose to associate with the people he was with, and the deceased failed to take reasonable steps to protect himself. The argument is designed to push the family below the 50% line and invoke the 51% bar.
The answer to the comparative-fault argument is evidence. The family’s evidence includes the deceased’s character witnesses, the deceased’s lack of a criminal record, the deceased’s lack of any prior incidents at the motel, the deceased’s reasonable expectations of safety in a commercial lodging property, and the absence of any warning signs the deceased ignored. The family’s evidence also includes the motel’s own conduct: the prior incident record, the security failures, the corporate budgets, and the post-shooting behavior. The defense’s comparative-fault argument is a closing argument, but the family’s evidence is the trial.
The Wrongful-Death Damages
Wrongful death damages in South Carolina fall into several categories. The first category is the financial support the deceased would have provided to the family. The second category is the services the deceased would have performed around the home, including childcare, eldercare, household maintenance, and household management. The third category is the loss of companionship, guidance, and counsel, which is a non-economic damage measured by the relationship between the deceased and the family members. The fourth category is the funeral and burial expenses, which are recoverable as a direct economic loss. The fifth category is the medical expenses incurred before the death, which are recoverable as a direct economic loss.
The damages are calculated based on the deceased’s age, earning capacity, life expectancy, the ages and circumstances of the family members, and the relationship between the deceased and the family members. A forensic economist builds the damages model, and the model is presented to the jury with the supporting documentation.
The Statute of Limitations: A Detailed Look
South Carolina’s statute of limitations for wrongful death actions is three years from the date of death, with discovery-rule nuances for cases where the cause of action could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of death. Survival actions run on the same three-year clock. The clock starts on May 7, 2026, the date of the death in this case.
The family should not wait. The motel will use every delay to allow records to be purged, witnesses to scatter, and the memory of the front desk clerk to fade. The law gives the family three years, but the proof of the case does not last three years. The first 30 days are the most important.
The Preservation of Surveillance Video
The single most important piece of evidence in a negligent-security motel case is the surveillance video. The video shows what the motel saw, what the motel did, and what the motel failed to do. The video is the proof of the security failure, the proof of the prior incidents, and the proof of the post-shooting behavior.
The video is also the fastest-dying record. The industry standard is to overwrite on a rolling cycle, and many systems are set to overwrite every 7 to 14 days. Some are set to overwrite as quickly as every 48 to 72 hours. The window between the date of the shooting and the date the video is overwritten can be as short as 48 hours.
The litigation hold letter demands preservation of the video, and the letter is sent the same day the family retains us. If the motel destroys the video after receiving the letter, the jury gets to assume the video would have hurt the motel. That is how spoliation turns a borderline case into a winning case.
The Preservation of Prior Incident Reports and Police Records
Prior incident reports and police records are the third most important piece of evidence in a negligent-security motel case. The prior incident reports are the motel’s own internal documents, and the police records are the public records of every call for service at the address. The prior incident reports and police records together prove the prior-incident record and prove the foreseeability.
The prior incident reports are typically retained on the motel’s internal systems, and the police records are typically retained on the police department’s systems. The litigation hold letter demands preservation of the prior incident reports, and we request the police records through the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act and through subpoena once the lawsuit is filed.
The Discovery Plan
The discovery plan in a negligent-security motel case is built in three phases. The first phase is the records phase, where we demand the litigation hold, the preservation, and the production of the records the motel and its parent and its management company and its security vendor are required to keep. The second phase is the deposition phase, where we depose the corporate representatives, the property staff, the security vendor staff, and the police officers. The third phase is the expert phase, where we retain and disclose the experts who will support the case at trial.
The records phase typically takes 60 to 90 days. The deposition phase typically takes 6 to 12 months. The expert phase typically takes 3 to 6 months. The total discovery period in a negligent-security motel case is typically 12 to 24 months, and the family needs a lawyer who is willing to spend that time fighting for every document.
The Mediation
Most negligent-security motel cases settle at mediation. Mediation is a confidential settlement conference facilitated by a neutral mediator, typically a retired judge or an experienced attorney. The mediator hears both sides, identifies the gaps in each side’s case, and helps the parties reach a settlement that both sides can accept.
Mediation typically happens after the close of discovery, when both sides have a clear picture of the evidence and the likely trial outcome. Mediation is the defense’s preferred exit, because a confidential settlement avoids a public verdict and avoids the precedent that a public verdict would set. Mediation is the family’s preferred exit, because a confidential settlement provides certainty and avoids the risk and the stress of a trial.
We prepare every case for trial, and we go to mediation with a clear picture of the case’s value, the case’s risks, and the case’s likely trial outcome. We negotiate from strength, not from weakness, and we do not settle for less than the case is worth.
The Voir Dire
Voir dire is the jury-selection process, and the voir dire in a negligent-security motel case is critical. The defense will try to seat jurors who are skeptical of premises-liability claims, who are sympathetic to small businesses, or who have personal experience with motels that colors their judgment. The family will try to seat jurors who understand that corporations have a duty to keep their guests safe, who are willing to hold a corporation accountable for putting profits over safety, and who can put a fair value on a human life.
We use jury consultants to help us pick the jury, and we use voir dire questions designed to surface the biases that will affect the jury’s decision. The jury we pick is the jury that decides the case, and the jury is the single most important variable in the trial.
The Closing Argument
The closing argument is the family’s last chance to tell the jury the story. The closing argument in a negligent-security motel case asks the jury to do three things. The first is to believe the evidence, which shows that the motel knew about the danger and failed to act. The second is to find the motel responsible, because the motel’s conduct was the proximate cause of the death. The third is to award the family the full measure of their loss, because the loss is permanent and the only way to make the family whole is to hold the motel accountable.
The closing argument is the culmination of the case, and the closing argument is where the trial lawyer earns the verdict. The closing argument weaves together the evidence, the experts, the witnesses, and the trial themes into a single, coherent narrative that the jury can carry into the deliberation room.
The Settlement After the Verdict
The defense sometimes approaches the family after the verdict to discuss a settlement that avoids the appeal. The settlement can take the form of a remittitur (the defense asks the court to reduce the verdict, and the family agrees to a reduced verdict in exchange for the defense waiving the appeal), a settlement of the post-trial motions (the family agrees to a reduced verdict in exchange for the defense waiving the right to appeal), or a complete settlement (the family agrees to a confidential amount in exchange for a full release of all claims).
We negotiate from strength after a verdict, and we do not settle for less than the verdict is worth. The post-verdict settlement is the defense’s preferred exit, and the post-verdict settlement is the family’s preferred exit, because both sides avoid the risk and the cost of the appeal.
The Statute of Limitations: One More Time
South Carolina’s statute of limitations for wrongful death actions is three years from the date of death. The clock starts on May 7, 2026. The family has until May 7, 2029 to file the lawsuit. The clock does not stop, and the clock does not pause, and the clock does not wait for the family to be ready.
The family should not wait. The motel will use every delay to allow records to be purged, witnesses to scatter, and the memory of the front desk clerk to fade. The law gives the family three years, but the proof of the case does not last three years. The first 30 days are the most important.
Why Attorney911: The Trial Team Behind This Page
Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — is a trial firm. We were built to take on corporate defendants in cases where the corporate defendant made a decision that put a person in harm’s way, and where the corporate defendant has the money to pay a verdict that makes the family whole. Our practice is focused on negligent security, premises liability, wrongful death, catastrophic injury, and the cases where the corporate decision is the cause of the harm.
Ralph Manginello, our managing partner, has spent more than 27 years in courtrooms, including federal court, fighting for people who were hurt by someone else’s carelessness. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, and he brings the same instinct for the story to the courtroom that he brought to the newsroom. He has tried cases against national brands, national insurance companies, and some of the largest corporations in the country, and he has the trial experience to take a motel shooting case to a verdict. You can read more about Ralph at our attorney page.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney, and he brings a unique advantage to every case he works on. Before he joined us, Lupe was a lawyer on the other side — a former insurance-defense attorney at a national defense firm who sat in the rooms where insurance companies decide how much to pay, where they decide which cases to fight, and where they decide which cases to settle. Lupe knows the playbook from the inside, and Lupe uses that knowledge to build cases that the defense cannot ignore. Lupe is also fluent in Spanish, and he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. You can read more about Lupe at our attorney page.
Our firm is built on a simple promise: we don’t get paid unless we win your case. We advance the costs of the case out of our own pocket, and we get paid only if we recover money for the family. The consultation is free, the conversation is private, and the first call is on us. If we are not the right fit for the case, we will tell you who is. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 1-888-ATTY-911. Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The value of any case is driven by the specific evidence developed in the investigation, the specific coverage tower of the defendant, and the specific jury pool in the venue. The case-value range discussed in this article is a published framework figure and is not a prediction of recovery in any specific case.
Insurance-Adjuster Playbook: What the Family Will Hear and How to Answer
Within days of the shooting, the family will hear from the motel’s insurance adjuster. The adjuster will be friendly, will express sympathy, and will frame the conversation as a routine settlement discussion. The adjuster’s job is to settle the case for as little as possible, as quickly as possible, and with a full release of all claims. The adjuster has a playbook, and the playbook has three standard plays.
Play One: The Quick-Settlement Offer
The adjuster will offer the family a small amount of money, typically a few thousand dollars, in exchange for a full release of all claims. The adjuster will frame the offer as a way to avoid the cost and stress of a lawsuit. The offer is almost always a fraction of the case’s true value, and the release the adjuster wants the family to sign is a permanent bar to any future claim, including claims the family does not yet know exist. The counter is to refuse the offer, refer the adjuster to the family’s attorney, and let the attorney negotiate.
Play Two: The Recorded-Statement Request
The adjuster will ask the family to give a recorded statement about the shooting. The adjuster will frame the request as a routine part of the claims process. The recorded statement is a trap. The adjuster will ask leading questions designed to get the family to say things that can be used against the family later, and the recorded statement will become evidence in the case. The counter is to refuse the recorded statement, refer the adjuster to the family’s attorney, and let the attorney handle all communications with the insurance company.
Play Three: The Medical-Authorization Request
The adjuster will ask the family to sign a medical authorization that allows the adjuster to obtain the deceased’s complete medical history. The adjuster will frame the request as a routine part of the claims process. The medical authorization is a fishing expedition. The adjuster is looking for pre-existing conditions, prior injuries, or prior mental-health issues that can be used to reduce the value of the case or to push the comparative-fault percentage above 50%. The counter is to refuse the medical authorization, refer the adjuster to the family’s attorney, and let the attorney negotiate a medical authorization that is limited to the injuries relevant to the case.
The Fourth Play (Less Common but More Dangerous): The Defense Lawyer’s Direct Contact
In some cases, the defense lawyer will contact the family directly, bypassing the insurance adjuster. The defense lawyer will be more aggressive than the adjuster, will try to get the family to admit fault, and will try to lock the family into a narrative that benefits the defense. The counter is to refuse to speak to the defense lawyer, refer the defense lawyer to the family’s attorney, and let the attorney handle all communications with the defense.
How the Defense Will Frame the Case
The defense will frame the case as a random act of violence by a criminal actor, and the defense will argue that no amount of security could have prevented the shooting. The defense will point to the motel’s security measures (cameras, lighting, locks) and argue that the motel met the standard of care. The defense will argue that the deceased was in a high-risk area for reasons unrelated to the motel’s security, and the defense will argue that the deceased’s own conduct was the proximate cause of the death.
The family’s response to the defense’s framing is the evidence. The prior-incident record shows that violence on the property was foreseeable. The corporate budgets show that the motel decided to cut security despite the known danger. The corporate emails show that the motel’s management knew about the danger and failed to act. The post-shooting behavior shows that the motel tried to cover up the security failures. The expert witnesses show that the motel’s security measures were inadequate. The family’s evidence is the response to the defense’s framing, and the family’s evidence is the proof that the motel is responsible.
The Statute of Limitations: The Final Word
South Carolina’s statute of limitations for wrongful death actions is three years from the date of death. The clock started on May 7, 2026. The family has until May 7, 2029 to file the lawsuit. Waiting has a direct cost, and the cost is the case.
The motel will use every delay to allow records to be purged, witnesses to scatter, and the memory of the front desk clerk to fade. The law gives the family three years, but the proof of the case does not last three years. The first 30 days are the most important.
Call Us
If your family has been affected by the shooting at the motel on Bush River Road in Columbia, South Carolina, on May 7, 2026, the call is free, the conversation is private, and the first call is on us. We will give you an honest assessment of the case, we will explain the legal process, and we will tell you whether we are the right fit for your case. We work on contingency, which means you pay us nothing up front and we don’t get paid unless we win your case. Hablamos Español. 1-888-ATTY-911.