711 S.E.2d 908
S.C.2011Background
- Appellant F. Doe, guardian ad litem, sues Wal-Mart for negligence related to a child abuse case involving J. Doe.
- Aunt observed bruising and suspected abuse but did not report to DSS or police; she photographed injuries instead.
- Photos were brought to Wal-Mart for development; aunt believed negatives depicting abuse were destroyed by store policy, though they were not.
- Victim later disclosed sexual abuse; father pled guilty to first degree criminal sexual conduct; victim placed with aunt.
- Appellant sued Wal-Mart in 2003 alleging failure to report under the Reporter's Statute and other common law negligence theories; circuit court granted summary judgment for Wal-Mart.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reporter's Statute liability | Doe argues Wal-Mart failed to report suspected abuse as required. | Wal-Mart contends the statute provides no private civil remedy for failure to report. | No private action under the statute; no civil liability. |
| Common law duty to warn or protect | Wal-Mart owed a duty to warn or protect the victim due to ownership of policies and leverage over actors. | No general duty to monitor or warn; no special relationship or statutory duty here. | Wal-Mart owed no duty; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Effect of Wal-Mart internal policies | Internal policies could create a duty when violated by employees. | Policies do not create a voluntary duty; they may set standard of care but do not establish duty absent law. | Internal policy cannot create a separate duty; still no liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390 (2007) (no private right of action for failure to report under § 63-7-310)
- Faile v. S.C. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 350 S.C. 315 (2002) (no general duty to control or warn; five exceptions to duty)
- Madison ex rel. Bryant v. Babcock Center, Inc., 371 S.C. 123 (2006) (standard of care may be defined by multiple sources; duty required first)
- Peterson v. Natl. R.R. Passenger Corp., 365 S.C. 391 (2005) (standard of care may be established by various authorities)
- Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426 (1996) (implication of rights when statute does not include a private remedy)