S.c. R. Civ. P. 8
This Rule 8(a) is in the same general language as the Federal Rule with the important distinction that the State practice requiring pleading of the facts (rather than a “statement of the claim”) is retained. The prayer or demand for relief is also designated as a part of the pleading to finally eliminate confusion on that point. Liberal rules as to amendment throughout (i.e., Rule 15 ) enable the parties to conform the pleadings to the facts and relief demanded, as they develop. See Rule 54(c). The final sentence is added to eliminate prayers for exaggerated and sensational claims for damages.
Note to 1986 Amendment:
Rule 8(a) is amended because the amount in controversy may determine the jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts, as well as the methods of discovery available in State courts. As originally adopted a general plea seeking punitive damages placed no limit on the amount sought and could expand the scope of the case unduly. This amendment avoids an exaggerated interpretation of a claim for punitive damages and permits the pleader to keep the case proportionate to the actual injury suffered.
This Rule 8(b) is the same as the Federal Rule. It abolishes the “general denial” unless the pleader can controvert every allegation of the complaint, including the jurisdictional allegations. Every allegation must be specifically admitted or denied. Failure to deny constitutes admission. An answer neither admitting nor denying but “demanding proof thereof” is insufficient. The pleader must deny in good faith all parts of an averment not admitted.
Note to 1986 Amendment:
Rule 8(b) is amended to make clear that fact pleading is required for both the complaint and answer.
This Rule 8(c) is the same as the Federal Rule except for some affirmative defenses added to the list as a guide. The aim is to avoid the “surprise” defenses permissible under the old general denial answer, and require the defendant also to stick to “fact” pleading. The last sentence permits a fact pleading reply to all affirmative defenses. This reinforces the intent to fix the facts by the pleadings, an important departure from the Federal Rules approach to pleadings.
Note to 1986 Amendment:
The affirmative defenses of condonation and recrimination are added to Rule 8(c) because they are often asserted in pleadings in Family Courts.
Note to 1995 Amendment:
Rule 8(c) is amended to add the affirmative defense of duress to conform the rule to the comparable federal rule. The amendment does not change substantive or procedural law because duress is recognized as an affirmative defense, and the concluding clause of the first sentence requires it to be asserted as a matter of avoidance.
This Rule 8(d) is simply a restatement of Code §15-13-80.
These Rules 8(e) and 8(f) substantially restate Code §§15-15-40 and 15-13-20, and are no change to State practice. This Rule does not allow “jumbling” of two or more causes of action in one count.