Fitzer v. Greater Greenville South Carolina Young Men's Christian Ass'n, 21554

• Decision Date: 31 August 1981
• Docket Number: No. 21554,21554
• Citation: 282 S.E.2d 230,277 S.C. 1
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , 25 A.L.R.4th 513 Matthew Barlow FITZER, A Minor Under the Age of Fourteen (14) Years, by His Guardian Ad Litem, Ardis C. Fitzer, Appellant, v. GREATER GREENVILLE SOUTH CAROLINA YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION,Respondent.

Page 230

282 S.E.2d 230

277 S.C. 1, 25 A.L.R.4th 513

Matthew Barlow FITZER, A Minor Under the Age of Fourteen (14) Years, by His Guardian Ad Litem, Ardis C Fitzer, Appellant, v. GREATER GREENVILLE SOUTH CAROLINA YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION,Respondent.

No. 21554.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 31, 1981.

Stephen R. Fitzer, Columbia, for appellant.

Robert C. Wilson, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.

NESS, Justice:

Appellant Matthew Barlow Fitzer appeals from an order granting respondent, Greater Greenville Young Men's Christian Association, summary judgment. We reverse.

Fitzer paid a fee and attended Camp Greenville which is operated by the respondent. During his stay at the camp he was injured by a rock thrown by another camper. Fitzer brought this negligence action to recover damages for the injuries he sustained. The trial court granted respondent summary judgment holding Fitzer's claim was barred by the doctrine of charitable immunity.

Fitzer asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the doctrine of charitable immunity is not applicable. We agree.

Fitzer's mother stated in her affidavit opposing summary judgment that she paid a fee so her son could attend camp, she procured liability insurance through the camp, and she was not aware the camp was an alleged charitable institution. Respondent contends Camp Greenville is: (1) operated by the Greater Greenville Y.M.C.A.; (2) operated at a loss; and (3) is a charitable institution.

In Eiserhardt v. State Agricultural and Mechanical Society of South Carolina, 235 S.C. 305, 111 S.E.2d 568 (1959), this Court held that in a tort action the charitable character of a corporation depends upon the facts of the particular case and the charter is not conclusive as to immunity from liability.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Fitzer, as we must do on appeal from an order granting summary judgment, we believe a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether or not Camp Greenville is a "charitable" or "commercial" venture. Jamison v. Howard, 271 S.C. 385, 247 S.E.2d 450 (1978).

Moreover, the critical issue is whether or not we will depart from our steadfast adherence to the antiquated rule which grants immunity from tort liability to charitable institutions. There is no tenet more fundamental in our law than liability follows the tortious wrongdoer. Yet, in South Carolina immunity is the rule and liability the exception. It is time to once and for all lay this anachronism to rest.

In modifying the doctrine of charitable immunity in Brown v. Anderson County Hospital Association, 268 S.C. 479, 234 S.E.2d 873 (1977), the Court held:

"(T)he reason for the change of position of this Court is, in part, ....

'The law's emphasis ordinarily is on liability, not immunity, for wrongdoing. Respondeat superior has widened it in an institutionally, and to a large extent corporately, organized community. Charity is generally no defense. When it has been organized as a trust or corporation, emphasis has shifted from liability to immunity. The conditions of law and of fact which created the shift have changed. The rule of immunity is out of step with the general trend of legislative and judicial policy in distributing losses incurred by individuals through the operation of an enterprise among all who benefit by it rather than in leaving them wholly to be borne by those who sustain them...' President and Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 130 F.2d 810 (1942)."

The public policy arguments which have been used to justify the rule no longer withstand judicial scrutiny. Proponents of the rule argue its abrogation will signal the demise of charities in our State. This argument was addressed in Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 417 Pa. 486, 208 A.2d 193, 201 (1965), wherein the Court held:

"If havoc and financial chaos were inevitable to follow the abrogation of the immunity doctrine, as the advocates for its retention insist, this would certainly...