*1 521 the basis for a trial court’s renders it argue against ruling case). (as if Thus, agreed the law of the even we with Heller did) Godfrey referee had to special apparently pay $6,000 additional a 25%interest in the acquire Corpora- that, we would affirm the to avoid enrich- tion, ruling unjust in- Heller, Godfrey ment to is entitled to some undetermined terest, by unappealed ruling.2 as we are bound this affirmed

Accordingly, judgment is and the case is re- proceedings opinion. manded for consistent Affirmed and remanded. JJ., concur. Goolsby,

Cureton CLYBURN, Appellant Fernaudra v. SUMTER 17, Respondent. COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

(429 (2d) 862) S.E. Appeals

Court of Godfrey appeal special ruling further did not We note referee’s allowing ownership unjust him a interest 25% would result in enrichment Godfrey. accordingly will unappealed ruling He be bound in the subsequent hearing to determine the extent of his interest. *2 W. Jeffrey Young, Sumter, appellant. for Davis, Camden, Bruce E. respondent 15, 1993; 19, 1993. Heard March Decided April May 27, 1993. Reh. Den. Acting Judge: Associate

Littlejohn, Clyburn, student, Fernaudra sued the Sumter District) (the County injuries School District No. 17 School she received when attacked a nonstudent on a school bus. The trial court granted summary judgment to the School Dis- Clyburn appeals. trict and We affirm.

Summary judgment proper is where there is no gen- uine issue as to material fact and the any moving party 56, law. Rule judgment is entitled to as a matter of (2d) SCRCP; Baugus Wessinger, v. 412, 401 S.E. 303 S.C. (1991). where further Summary judgment appropriate is clarify into the facts of the case is desirable to inquiry ap- Baugus. Summary plication law. should not judgment be even when there is no granted dispute as to the eviden- if there is as to the tiary dispute facts conclusion to be drawn from those facts. Id. All conclusions, ambiguities, infer- enees arising and from the evidence must be construed most strongly against Id.; movant. Grooms v. Marlboro County District, (Ct. App. 1992) (in deciding summary judgment motions, the record must liberally be construed in favor of the nonmoving party, who must be accorded the benefit of all inferences reasonably record). drawn from the

Clyburn and Sylvia Witherspoon were student passengers on one the School District’s school buses. On 25, October 1990,as she got off of the bus, Sylvia Witherspoon got into an altercation with Clyburn’s niece. The bus driver refused Clyburn’s request to get off at that point, and required her to remain on the bus and disembark at her regular stop. After getting off the bus, Clyburn returned to the area where her niece Witherspoon had been arguing. Clyburn en- countered, among others, (the Johnnie Mae Witherspoon As- sailant), the nonstudent adult sister of Sylvia Witherspoon. *3 Clyburn and the got Assailant into a fight.

The next morning, Friday, the Assailant and her mother were with about a dozen people waiting to board the bus. The driver was not immediately aware of their presence, when but she them saw she ordered get them to off the bus. They ig- nored her proceeded and to Clyburn where was seated. The driver immediately followed them and them ordered off the bus. Witherspoon’s mother made verbal threats to Clyburn and as she left bus she the said to Clyburn, “Bitch, I will be back.”

The driver reported the incident the day same to Lamar Atkins, the District’s Director Transportation Services. The driver told Atkins that the Assailant had attacked Clyburn and had they said would meet again. Atkins was also aware of the Thursday incident involving Clyburn’s niece.

Atkins called Clyburn both Sylvia and Witherspoon meet to with him and the driver. Atkins Clyburn admonished and Sylvia for their behavior and tried to call on the telephone. He wanted to the parties counsel on the students’ unacceptable behavior and potential consequences that be- Clyburn’s havior. mother was at work and her employer would not let her take nonemergency calls. The Witherspoon number was disconnected. Atkins informed and Clyburn that he needed to talk with their parents quickly to criminal pursue to having without resolve charges. niece where Middle Bates called Atkins to her to direct principal the assistant and asked enrolled

was away and stop bus students’ school the from away stay the matter about Atkins one contacted No the situation. at- not did Atkins weekend. the or over evening Friday that stated Clyburn weekend. the during contact further tempt he Friday incident the her after assured Atkins matter. take care would at Assailant looked bus driver the the attack After stop she would Assailant the She told stop. bus stop. the bus atwas if Assailant bus However, next nothing occurred. Monday following The bus, es- and boarded stop at the bus Assailant day went The driver recognition. immediate the driver’s caping her saw and the bus her from remove Assailant after the vio- fleeing students rush of The Clyburn. at a knife swing the bus. her from knocked and the driver trampled lence bag her into reached attack, Clyburn the Assailant’s Upon at swung which she wrench crescent foot-long produced forehead, on Clyburn cut The Assailant the Assailant. chase, but gave Clyburn bus. from the and ran wrist hand who was a teacher hospital to the and taken restrained by. passing noted facts, and reviewed the court trial The Ann. Code enforce S.C. failure District’s the School argued a school interference with (penalties § 59-67-245 The negligence. find gross bus) was sufficient holding: disagreed, court trial en- to seek district *4 the upon not incumbent It is Transporta- Director statute; for the forcement favor of first so in do to discretion his tion to exercise and crim- of police short resolve the to attempting successfully done had as he activity, enforcement inal law pp. Deposition, kind, [Atkins’ problems prior with wilful, wan- as be construed reasonably 24], cannot 17 & immunity to avoid required conduct as or reckless ton a student sustained injury liability supervision. The trial plain undisputed court stated “the facts show the school officials’ conduct to be far from ‘indifferent’ very care’; and at the least an exercise of and on this ‘slight conclusion reasonable minds cannot differ.” the Accordingly, court the School District and granted summary judgment for Clyburn appealed.

A governmental entity may be liable to a student for a when the entity’s responsibility supervise, pro loss to or in tect, grossly negli control a student is exercised 15-78-60(25) § gent 1992); manner. S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. —Dist., —, Hollins v. Richland School S.C. 427 S.E. County (2d) 654; (1993); Woodell v. Marion School Dist. 1, (2d) (Ct. 1992). App. negligence Gross is the fail intentional, ure to exercise care. Hollins. It “the slight is con scious failure to do something upon which it is incumbent one to do or the of a doing thing intentionally ought that one not to do.” Id. 427 S.E. at 656 in (emphasis original). is a relative negligence term, and means absence “[G]ross slight care that is under the necessary circumstances.” Id. of (emphasis original). Accord Grooms v. Marlboro (where School District County person is so indifferent as to not to he give slight doing, his conduct as care to what is he is guilty of gross negligence).

We have principles reviewed the record with these mind, and conclude that the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that the School District exercised at care in slight Clyburn argues least this case. that Atkins could police have called the after first incident involving As- bus, points sailant the school but she to boarding nothing which made it “incumbent” him to do so.1She also fails to point intentional, to infers the anything else which conscious 1 Clyburn argues that a should be allowed to determine whether gross negligence guilty bring to District was a criminal pursuant § to against action the Assailant S.C. Code Ann. 59-67-245 wilfully after the first attack. Section 59-67-245 makes it unlawful wrongfully operation by, among interfere of a school bus other things, boarding using physical any pas the bus or against or verbal threats senger. undisputed However, It is provision. that the Assailant violated this nothing requires any in the section school officials take action to enforce its provisions. fact, provides “[n]othing In the last sentence contained herein interpreted power duly infringe upon shall be and duties of constituted provision pointed requires other of law which authorities.” has to no every § pursue criminal action for violation of 59-67-245. school officials to *5 Atkins it was incumbent something which failure to do thing of a do, doing or the employee District any other or have done. not to intentionally they ought that case in the Hollins Court Supreme are aware that We factual circum- that, particular recently found exercised the school district case, that whether of stances eleven-year-old, an a note home with sending care” in “slight walking a car while who was struck child, grade-school Court stated Supreme The jury. home, question the District’s whether to determine that it was for actual notice mother received ensure that the child’s failure to In a negligence. gross constituted suspension the child’sbus Hollins from however, distinguished the Court footnote, (2d) 296 504, 374 S.E. Hambright, 296 S.C. Richardson v. the SchoolDis- Hambright, manner: in following in the (1988), parents students and to ensure that both trict took measures in- and the students driving/riding policy, of a had notification clear that school. It is age, grade school not high volved were Hollins to holding limit the Court intended to Supreme case. particular the facts of that With- and Atkins admonished case, In this and sister, for their behavior younger the Assailant’s erspoon, girls He warned both parents. to contact their attempted to resolve this quickly speak he needed to He called charges. criminal having pursue matter without niece was enrolled school where the middle stay away direct the niece to principal asked the assistant lookout kept The bus driver stop. school bus high from the she would the Assailant that the Assailant and informed stop. at the bus if she saw the Assailant not the bus stop the As- the first time notify police about Atkins did inci- he had dealt with similar boarded the bus because sailant involving police. in the without past dents case were case, the students Hambright As in the Furthermore, while Atkins not middle school. age, to ensure steps have taken other might or the bus driver (and guilty of perhaps not occur were the second attack would at the so), we find that to do ordinary negligence care,” just Supreme exercised as they “slight least very agree case. We with the trial Hambright in the Court found grossly negligent the District was not as a ruling court’s appropriate. summary judgment law, is ac- judgment trial court’s The Hambright. v. Richardson *6 cordingly

Affirmed.

Goolsby, J., concurs. J., dissents separate opinion. in

Cureton, (dissenting): Judge Cureton, Hollins v. recent case of reason I think the for the I dissent man- (1993), County, Richland summary judgment. of grant dates a reversal student eleven-year-old mother of an Hollins, In daughter after her the School District against suit brought home walking while highway to cross a attempting killed was riding suspended had been The child from school. received had not but the mother days, for five school bus did not deliver daughter because the the suspension notice of stated that whether note. The court to her the school’s home sending in a note slight care District exercised Under jury. for the question old was a year an eleven with to de- it for the stated, the court instructions, proper failure to ensure the School District’s whether termine consti- suspension actual notice of the bus received mother gross negligence. tuted guilty the School District

I hold that whether would attack the second preventing gross negligence Director of The District’s jury. was a matter Clyburn these between of the trouble was well aware Transportation action legal against have taken and could individuals days prior four boarding the bus for assailant the as- that she knew admitted The driver second attack. a lookout keeping and was sailant, danger, was aware of trouble after causing her from prevent for the assailant to was able to board this, incident. the assailant Despite first inas Additionally, a knife. bus and attack of this the circumstances whether, I Hollins, think slight even care District exercised case, the School days, the attack for some four notify Clyburn’s Presumably, Clyburn’s jury. fact for the question awas parents would have arranged alternate transportation school or taken steps to protect their daughter.

Viewing the evidence and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom most favorably I Clyburn, would hold that ei- into, ther a genuine issue exists, of fact or an inquiry the facts is desirable to clarify application of the law. COX, McAllister,

Eddie M. Rosa Becote, L. Ruby Brandon, Annie R. M. Singletary, Jr., James McAllister, Coar, Ernestine Kenneth N. Ronald C. Clarida, Dorothy Vaughn, McAllister, Earl Burgess, Elease Rosa A. Green, Holloway, Hattie Jackson, Bell Johnny McAllister, Almeto L. Dorothy Edwards, McAllister, M. David Scott, Chris Scott and Eric Scott, Michelle Scott minors, and Victoria three their Guardian Ad Litem, Johnson, Mordecai C. Respondents FRIERSON, v. Arthur L. *7 Daisy Eaddy, F. Eaddy, McAllister, Sarah Jane Louise Pringle, Jessie M. Benjamin Scott, Frierson and Appellants. Curtis

(429 (2d)866) S.E. Appeals

Court of