Crowley v. Spivey
| Decision Date | 01 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 0453,0453 |
| Citation | 329 S.E.2d 774,285 S.C. 397 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Timothy CROWLEY, As Administrator of the Estate of Michael Crowley, A Minor Under the Age of Fourteen (14) Years, Respondent, v. Edward F. SPIVEY and Nora D. Spivey, Appellants, and Timothy CROWLEY, As Administrator of the Estate of Timothy Crowley, Jr., A Minor Under the Age of Fourteen (14) Years, Respondent, v. Edward F. SPIVEY and Nora D. Spivey, Appellants. . Heard |
T. Reeve Sams, of Levin, Sams & Davis, Beaufort, for appellants.
Joel D. Bailey, of Moss, Bailey, Dore & Jessee, P.A., Beaufort, for respondent.
These two wrongful death actions were brought by Timothy Crowley (Timothy), as the administrator of the estates of his two minor sons, twelve-year-old Timothy, Jr., and five-year-old Michael. The suits were brought against the children's maternal grandparents, Edward F. and Nora D. Spivey. The cases were consolidated for trial, and the jury returned verdicts for actual damages in each suit. We affirm.
The decedents were the only children of the marriage between Timothy and Joyce Lynette Crowley (Lynette), who is the Spiveys' daughter. Lynette was granted custody of the children when she and Timothy were divorced in 1975. In 1978, Timothy gained custody from Lynette, who was granted visitation rights. On the morning of April 29, 1979, while the children were visiting Lynette for a weekend at the Spiveys' home in Beaufort, Lynette shot and killed the children. Lynette had received intermittent treatment for the mental disease paranoid schizophrenia since 1971.
The identical complaints alleged that Timothy, upon learning that Lynette had acquired a gun, advised the Spiveys that he would no longer permit visitation with the children away from his home. The Spiveys, it was alleged, then told Timothy they would supervise the care and safety of the children if the children came to visit Lynette at their home. Among the specifications of negligence charged were allegations that the Spiveys (1) unreasonably failed to discover that Lynette had access to or possession of a gun, (2) unreasonably failed to take measures to prevent Lynette from having access to a gun during the children's visitation, and (3) failed to exercise a reasonable degree of control and supervision over the visitation between Lynette and the children by allowing her to visit with the children in a locked room when the Spiveys knew or should have known that this would increase the likelihood of harm to the children.
We first address the Spiveys' contention that there is no competent evidence to support the verdict. In deciding this question, we are required to view the evidence and all the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to Timothy, the plaintiff. Woodward v. Todd, 270 S.C. 82, 240 S.E.2d 641 (1978). If the evidence as a whole is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, the matter is for the jury to resolve. Davenport v. Walker, 280 S.C. 588, 313 S.E.2d 354 (S.C.App.1984). Viewing the troubling facts of this case in such a light, they are as follows.
Lynette was first treated for a mental disorder in June 1971, when she was hospitalized for six weeks. Timothy testified that before the hospitalization Lynette displayed symptoms of "serious emotional problems," such as periods of severe depression, inordinate fears that people were "plotting" against her, and absurd delusions. During this time Lynette was in close contact with the Spiveys, who also noticed similar symptoms and, according to Timothy, were very much concerned.
The Spiveys kept abreast of Lynette's status throughout the 1971 hospitalization. Mr. Spivey helped Timothy escort Lynette to the hospital when she was first admitted, and was aware that she was diagnosed to be a paranoid schizophrenic. About two weeks into the six-week hospitalization period, Lynette was transferred to a different facility, in part because the Spiveys were not satisfied with the care received at the original facility.
Upon her discharge to the care of Timothy and the Spiveys, Lynette was prescribed a course of continued medication and follow-up care. With this treatment, her condition improved markedly. She was gradually taken off medication, but continued her follow-up treatment for the duration of her marriage.
When Lynette and Timothy were divorced in 1975, Lynette was granted custody of the children. In 1976, Lynette and the children moved from Charleston to Beaufort to live with the Spiveys.
In May 1977, Lynette began treatment as an outpatient at a Beaufort mental health clinic. She was again diagnosed to be a paranoid schizophrenic and was prescribed medication and periodic follow-up care. Her treatment at the Beaufort facility continued up to the tragic event of April 1979, but not on a regular basis.
In November 1977, Lynette decided to seek hospitalization. She traveled to a Charleston hospital and there was evaluated by Dr. Douglas Crane. Following the evaluation, however, she decided not to hospitalize herself. Thereafter, she telephoned Dr. Crane with great frequency. By April 1978, Dr. Crane had become so alarmed at Lynette's condition that he felt compelled to advise the Spiveys of his concern. Unable to reach the Spiveys by phone, Dr. Crane wrote them a letter informing them that Lynette had been telephoning him on nearly a daily basis and that he thought Lynette's "demoralized and disorganized state" made "her potential for attempting to kill herself ... very high." Dr. Crane offered to assist the Spiveys in seeking psychiatric help for Lynette.
The Spiveys did not respond to Dr. Crane's letter, so about two weeks later, on his own initiative, he took steps to involuntarily commit Lynette, to include arranging to have her placed in the William S. Hall Institute in Columbia. With the commitment proceedings underway, the Spiveys traveled with Lynette to a Charleston hospital, where they spoke with Dr. Crane. They decided to escort Lynette from Charleston to the Hall Institute, with the involuntary commitment papers in hand. During the journey Lynette agreed to voluntarily commit herself.
Once at the Hall Institute, the Spiveys gave medical personnel an extensive history of Lynette. They related that her condition had deteriorated since January 1978. They noticed that Lynette had isolated herself and had become very suspicious, thinking people were plotting against her. They had even heard her speak of suicide.
Lynette remained in the Hall Institute from April 27, 1978, until June 9, 1978, when she was discharged to the Spiveys' care. Again she was prescribed medication and follow-up care at a mental health facility.
In July 1978, custody of the children was transferred to Timothy without contest from Lynette, who was given rights of visitation at her home on alternate weekends. The Spiveys noticed that Lynette became sad, depressed, and more withdrawn following the loss of custody. They began to suspect that she was not following her prescribed course of treatment, which they knew was necessary for her to lead a normal life. They never advised Timothy of these suspicions.
On December 30, 1978, Lynette purchased a .38 caliber revolver from a gun store in Beaufort for $124.80. Three days later she purchased a box of ammunition for $12.74.
In January 1979, Timothy learned from his son Michael that Lynette had a gun. He then informed Mr. Spivey that he would not permit the children to visit Lynette as long as she possessed a gun. Approximately four weeks later Lynette traveled to Timothy's home in Charleston to see the children. When she arrived, she turned over to Timothy a pistol that fired only blank cartridges, assuring him that it was the gun she had bought. Timothy immediately telephoned Mr. Spivey to inquire about the type of gun Lynette had given him. Mr. Spivey told Timothy that the pistol Lynette had given him was not the gun she had purchased. He knew this because Mrs. Spivey had found a receipt from the Beaufort gun store showing the sale of the .38 caliber pistol for $124.80. Timothy then again told Mr. Spivey that Lynette could not visit the children as long as she had a gun.
After four to six weeks had passed without any visitation, Lynette and Mr. Spivey telephoned Timothy. Mr. Spivey informed Timothy that Lynette told him she had disposed of the gun, and that furthermore, he had been unable to find it after repeated searches. Mr. Spivey, in a plea to persuade Timothy to allow visitation, told him that he would take "full responsibility" and supervise the children's visits in Beaufort. Relying on that assurance, Timothy relented and allowed Lynette to resume visitation with the children, feeling that they would be safe under the Spiveys' care and supervision.
Lynette never explained to Mr. Spivey just how she had supposedly disposed of the gun. He stated that he believed her assurances that she no longer had it, but he mounted a "continuous" search for the weapon nevertheless. Mrs. Spivey joined him in the search, because, she testified, "[W]e wanted to make sure that [Lynette] could see the children and we could do it with peace of mind."
Mr. Spivey offered various explanations for the search. He indicated at one point that Lynette had always had access to his own pistol, so that his search for the gun that Lynette had purchased was simply "to try to fix it so that she could see the children." Elsewhere, however, he acknowledged that "there's a lot of difference in my gun being there [and] her having one taking it around all the time with her." Mr. Spivey secured his own gun from Lynette when Timothy informed him of his distress over Lynette having one herself, although Mr. Spivey stated that at the time he was surprised Timothy was so concerned about the matter.
Mr. Spivey also feared that the police might discover Lynette with a gun and that consequently Timothy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd.
...282 S.C. 415, 321 S.E.2d 46 (1984); Salvo v. Hewitt, Coleman & Assocs., 274 S.C. 34, 260 S.E.2d 708 (1979); Crowley v. Spivey, 285 S.C. 397, 329 S.E.2d 774 (Ct.App.1985). Furthermore, a lessor must use due care if he attempts to make premises safe. Conner v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 243 S.......
-
Mellen v. Lane
...717 (Ct.App.1989) ("Where the injury complained of is not reasonably foreseeable there is no liability."); Crowley v. Spivey, 285 S.C. 397, 408, 329 S.E.2d 774, 780 (Ct.App.1985). In determining whether a consequence is natural and probable, the defendant's conduct must be viewed in the lig......
-
State v. Warner
...The address of the tower locations had to be established by cross-referencing the T-Mobile tower list. See Crowley v. Spivey , 285 S.C. 397, 412, 329 S.E.2d 774, 783 (Ct. App. 1985) (affirming admission of summary of thirty-one pages of telephone records where trial court concluded summary ......
-
Cooke v. Allstate Management Corp.
...to act, even though under no obligation to do so, may become subject to the duty to act with due care." Crowley v. Spivey, 285 S.C. 397, 406, 329 S.E.2d 774, 780 (Ct.App.1985). Having established that South Carolina law imposes a duty on a person to use reasonable care when any affirmative ......