731 S.E.2d 727
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hamilton, an inmate, sued the Department for negligent training and supervision of Officer Aiken who assaulted her.
- Aiken pled guilty to sexual misconduct with an inmate and received a suspended sentence with probation.
- At trial, the Department obtained a directed verdict on negligent training but the negligent supervision claim went to trial.
- After evidence closed, the court granted the Department a directed verdict on the negligent supervision claim.
- The trial court denied Hamilton’s post-trial motions; the appellate court affirmed the directed verdict on negligent supervision.
- Dissent would have reversed, finding evidence of gross negligence in supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the directed verdict on negligent supervision was proper | Hamilton argues gross negligence existed in supervision of Aiken | Department contends it met minimum standards and acted with slight care | Directed verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Degenhart v. Knights of Columbus, 309 S.C. 114, 420 S.E.2d 495 (1992) (control/foreseeable harm standard for negligent supervision)
- Jackson v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 301 S.C. 125, 390 S.E.2d 467 (Ct.App.1989) (gross negligence requires more than slight care)
- Steinke v. S.C. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, 336 S.C. 373, 520 S.E.2d 142 (1999) (definition of gross negligence as absence of needed care)
- Hollins v. Richland Cnty. Sch. Dist. One, 310 S.C. 486, 427 S.E.2d 654 (1993) (context on gross negligence standard)