in the suit, and the burden of proof rests upon him to establish his affirmative defense by the preponderance of the evidence.” Lorick & Lowrance, Inc. v. Julius H. Walker & Co., 153 S.C. 309, 318, 150 S.E. 789, 792 (1929). “Assumption of risk is an affirmative defense.” Howard v. South Carolina Dep’t of Highways, 343 S.C. 149, 155, 538 S.E.2d 291, 294 (Ct.App.2000); see also Wallace v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 300 S.C. 518, 524, 389 S.E.2d 155, 158 (Ct.App.1989) (stating “the affirmative defense of assumption of risk ordinarily presents a question of fact for the jury”). The trial court committed reversible error by not placing the burden of proving the affirmative defense of assumption of risk with SCE & G in its jury charge. See Ross v. Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 532 S.E.2d 612 (Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). When viewed as a whole the court’s
holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence holding the trial court erred in not charging the jury that a defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense of comparative negligence holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury