826 S.E.2d 281
S.C.2019Background
- Plaintiff, a BMW employee, underwent employer-ordered hair drug testing administered by a contract nurse; Psychemedics (defendant) analyzed the samples for BMW.
- Psychemedics' initial test reported Plaintiff positive for cocaine and its metabolite; BMW suspended Plaintiff and later terminated him after a second Psychemedics test also read positive.
- An independent laboratory tested a sample and reported negative; BMW did not accept those results.
- Plaintiff sued Psychemedics for negligence and negligent supervision; Psychemedics moved to dismiss arguing it owed no duty to the employee.
- The U.S. District Court certified the duty question to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which accepted certification under SCACR Rule 244.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a drug-testing lab owes employees a duty of care giving rise to negligence liability | Psychemedics owed a duty to test and report accurately; its negligence caused foreseeable harm (loss of employment) | No duty exists because the lab's contract is with the employer and the relationship to the employee is too attenuated | Yes. South Carolina recognizes a duty: lab may owe employees a duty arising from contract with employer and the lab's control over specimens; negligence claim may proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Sauls, 289 S.C. 121 (S.C. 1986) (tortfeasor may owe duty to third party arising from contractual relationship)
- Terlinde v. Neely, 275 S.C. 395 (S.C. 1980) (recognition that contractual relationships can give rise to tort duties to third parties)
- Landon v. Kroll Lab. Specialists, Inc., 999 N.E.2d 1121 (N.Y. 2013) (laboratory owes duty to test subjects to perform testing consistent with professional standards)
- Sharpe v. St. Luke's Hosp., 821 A.2d 1215 (Pa. 2003) (hospital owed duty in collecting and handling urine specimen)
- Duncan v. Afton, Inc., 991 P.2d 739 (Wyo. 1999) (drug-testing company owed duty in collecting, handling, and processing specimens)
- Cooper v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, Inc., 150 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting trend to recognize a limited duty by laboratories to tested employees)