705 S.E.2d 58
S.C. Ct. App.2010Background
- Pridgen was fired from the South Carolina Department of Corrections on May 24, 2004 after a January 2004 shakedown at Lee Correctional Institution revealed various contraband and policy violations.
- Pridgen filed a civil conspiracy action in December 2005 against Ward, Sheppard, and Hair, alleging they schemed to terminate him.
- The dispute arose after a October 2003 hostage incident; Ward and Sheppard sought to discredit Bessinger, Director of Training and Security, and Pridgen allegedly resisted Ward's demand to provide false information.
- During trial, evidence showed Ward, Hair, and Sheppard participated in investigations and meetings, and that Pridgen kept a file on Hair which allegedly provoked hostility.
- The trial court denied directed verdict; the jury returned verdict for Pridgen ($372,000); Appellants’ post-trial motions were denied; on appeal Appellants challenge scope of employment, joint assent, and SCTCA immunity.
- Standard of review and governing law were cited, including the appraisal of whether acts were within the scope of employment and whether joint assent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of employment for conspiracy | Pridgen argues Appellants acted outside scope for personal motives | Appellants contend acts were within official duties | Evidence supports some acts outside scope; affirmed denial of directed verdict/JNOV |
| Joint assent to conspiratorial objective | There was motive and coordinated meetings showing assent | No direct proof of joint assent | Circumstantial evidence supports inferred joint assent; affirmed |
| SCTCA immunity scope | Actions outside scope or with intent to harm negate immunity | Investigatory actions within authority should be immune | Jury could find outside-scope and intentional harm; SCTCA immunity denied; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McMillan v. Oconee Memorial Hosp., Inc., 367 S.C. 559 (2006) (three elements of civil conspiracy; proof may be circumstantial)
- Cowburn v. Leventis, 366 S.C. 20 (Ct.App.2005) (conspiracy requires joint assent and may be inferred from circumstances)
- Angus v. Burroughs & Chapin Co., 358 S.C. 498 (Ct.App.2004) (at-will employee immunity; cannot sue employer for civil conspiracy against termination)
- Lee v. Chesterfield General Hosp., Inc., 289 S.C. 6 (Ct.App.1986) (agents of a corporation may conspire among themselves or with third parties)
- Ross v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia, 273 S.C. 764 (1950s? (1979)) (immunity limitations under damages not to be used to shield intentional harm)