805 S.E.2d 578
S.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff John Doe 2 alleges sexual abuse by Louis “Skip” ReVille from 2005–2007; ReVille later pleaded guilty to abusing multiple boys and was imprisoned.
- ReVille had worked as a Citadel summer-camp counselor (2001–2003) and later as a part-time tutor at The Citadel (2006–2007).
- In April 2007 a former camper reported alleged sexual misconduct by ReVille to The Citadel’s general counsel, Brandenburg, who investigated but did not refer the matter to law enforcement; The Citadel ended its investigation.
- Doe was never a Citadel student or camp participant; his abuse occurred primarily outside Citadel programs while ReVille lived with Doe’s family.
- Doe sued The Citadel (2012) for negligence/gross negligence and outrage, claiming The Citadel had duties to investigate, prevent, or warn and that its conduct created or concealed risks; the circuit court granted summary judgment for The Citadel.
- The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding The Citadel owed no duty to Doe under the theories raised and that the outrage claim failed because any conduct was not directed at Doe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty via voluntary undertaking | The Citadel voluntarily investigated and thus assumed a duty to protect potential victims like Doe | Investigation was internal/for Citadel’s protection and did not increase risk to Doe or create reliance by him | No duty — voluntary undertaking doctrine not triggered (no increased risk or reliance) |
| Duty via negligent creation of risk | Citadel’s actions/omissions and policy violations created circumstances increasing risk that ReVille would victimize Doe | Citadel did not place Doe in harm’s way, had no knowledge of Doe, and did not create the risk as in Edwards | No duty — unlike Edwards, Citadel did not create or increase the risk to Doe |
| Statutory duty under Title IX | Title IX’s prohibitions imposed a duty on Citadel not to conceal sexual abuse | Doe was not a student/participant in Citadel programs so Title IX does not protect him | No statutorily-created duty — Doe is outside Title IX’s protected class |
| Outrage (intentional infliction) | Citadel’s failure to report and alleged concealment was outrageous and should be treated as directed at Doe | Citadel never knew of Doe and did not direct tortious conduct toward him | Summary judgment proper — outrage requires conduct directed at or in presence of a plaintiff known to defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., 349 S.C. 356, 563 S.E.2d 331 (appellate review standard for summary judgment)
- Roe v. Bibby, 410 S.C. 287, 763 S.E.2d 645 (elements of negligence)
- Faile v. S.C. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 350 S.C. 315, 566 S.E.2d 536 (exceptions to no-duty-to-warn rule)
- Edwards v. Lexington County Sheriff’s Dept., 386 S.C. 285, 688 S.E.2d 125 (duty where defendant created a situation posing substantial risk)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (state’s failure to protect from private harm does not itself create constitutional duty)
- Doe v. Rosa, 795 F.3d 429 (continued-exposure vs. creation-of-risk distinction)