K.S. v. Richland Sch. Dist. Two
| Docket Number | 2022-UP-312,Appellate Case 2019-000951 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2022 |
| Parties | K.S., a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, James Seeger, Appellants, v. Richland School District Two, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Heard April 5, 2022
Appeal From Richland County Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Jacob John Modla, of The Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor, P.C., of Rock Hill, for Appellant.
Sheneka Shante Lodenquai, of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &Smith, of Atlanta, GA, and Thomas Kennedy Barlow, of Halligan Mahoney &Williams, of Columbia, for Respondent.
James Seeger, acting as Guardian ad Litem for his son, K.S appeals a circuit court order directing a verdict in favor of Richland School District Two (Richland Two). The lawsuit alleged Richland Two was grossly negligent in failing to promptly investigate and admonish K.S.'s first grade teacher (Teacher). There does not appear to be any dispute that Teacher directed inappropriate language at K.S. and that K.S. was psychologically harmed. The circuit court directed a verdict based on the reasoning that K.S.'s mental injuries were not recoverable absent a physical injury. We affirm, but for slightly different reasons.
North Springs Elementary, located in Richland Two, assigned K.S. to Teacher's first grade class in 2011. K.S. stopped wanting to go to school shortly after the school year began. K.S. got upset at home in the mornings and cried at school throughout the day. K.S. said the crying was because he missed Seeger but an incident in the school cafeteria some months after school began revealed K.S. was continually upset over interactions with Teacher.
A worker in the cafeteria witnessed Teacher "approach[ing K.S.] very harshly" after K.S. dropped his food tray. Teacher then grabbed K.S. "very forcefully by his arm" and walked him to a table after he got a new tray. This made K.S. cry. The cafeteria worker reported hearing Teacher say "I will give you something to cry for." Teacher left K.S. to eat alone at the table.
K.S testified Teacher clawed him with her fingernails when she grabbed him, which hurt. Seeger testified he could not remember whether there were scratches on K.S.'s arm; did not remember including anything about fingernails, scratches or cuts in emails he sent the school principal following the incident; and did not take any pictures. A forensic psychologist who provided expert testimony stated he assumed he would know if Teacher physically injured K.S. but had no knowledge of her doing so, nobody told him she did, and K.S.'s medical records did not indicate she did. Richland Two's Director of Human Resources testified nobody reported a physical injury to her.
When the Seegers learned what happened, they asked the principal to move K.S. to a new class. The principal did so immediately. K.S. cried on the walk to his new class because he saw Teacher in the hallway, but he stopped crying after he met his new teacher.
After changing classes, K.S. eventually shared Teacher had mistreated him before the cafeteria incident, including by confiscating encouraging notes from Seeger and allowing the other students in the class to form a "no crying club" that excluded K.S.
Richland Two opened an investigation into Teacher after the incident in the cafeteria. The investigation revealed two faculty members in the school's media center had previously reported Teacher to the principal after witnessing her treat students in a concerning manner. These reports occurred before the cafeteria incident described above.
The first report involved Teacher yelling at a child in front of all of the students in her class to pick a different book to read. Teacher exclaimed "there [was] no way" the child could read "one word" of the book, which made the child "sob."
The second report involved K.S. Teacher apparently told those in the media center to not give K.S. any special treatment or praise because he did not deserve anything for crying all day in her class. Then, when Teacher picked up her class from the media center and learned K.S. had behaved well, she reportedly said, "of course he was good for you, he has cried all day in my class." K.S. heard both sets of comments and was upset by them.
The principal apparently did not take any action after either of these reports. Seeger asserts this inaction was a violation of Richland Two's antibullying policy.
The parties tried the case for three days. During trial, Seeger proffered expert testimony from Dr. Alan McEvoy, an academic specializing in teacher bullying and school district responses. Dr. McEvoy's testimony described the national standard of care and his professional opinion that Richland Two breached the national standard as well as its own policy, which was consistent with the national standard. The circuit court excluded the testimony, deeming it cumulative with other testimony about the school's antibullying policy.
Richland Two moved for a directed verdict at the close of trial. There was ample testimony throughout trial about the negative impact K.S.'s experience in Teacher's class had on his mental health. K.S. suffers from anxiety, depression, angry outbursts, and trouble sleeping to this day (he is now in high school). He has seen a number of therapists and a psychologist, takes prescription medication, and had to go to tutoring because the experience affected his performance at school.
As we mentioned at the beginning, the circuit court granted Richland Two's motion for a directed verdict because it found the damages were "purely emotional damages" that were not brought about by bodily injury and did not result in bodily injury.
1. Did the circuit court err in directing a verdict in favor of Richland Two because K.S. suffered purely emotional injuries?
2. Does the Safe School Climate Act waive the South Carolina Tort Claims Act?
3. Did the circuit court err in excluding the testimony of Seeger's expert?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"In an appeal from the grant of a directed verdict, [an appellate court] must, like the trial court . . ., view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant ...." Miller v. FerrellGas, L.P., Inc., 392 S.C. 295, 297, 709 S.E.2d 616, 617 (2011). "When viewed in that light, if there is any evidence that may be reasonably construed as creating a question of fact, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury." Id. Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140, 149, 485 S.E.2d 903, 908 (1997), superseded on other grounds by statute, SC Code Ann. § 15-36-10(C)(1) (Supp. 2012), as recognized in Holmes v. E. Cooper Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 408 S.C. 138, 758 S.E.2d 483 (2014).
The core dispute in this case is whether Seeger's claim satisfies the standard to prove a claim for damages that are purely emotional (put differently, purely mental) in nature. Seeger argues all that is required to survive a directed verdict in a case for mental health damages is some evidence of a physical manifestation of those damages. To that end, he contends K.S.'s anxiety, depression, angry outbursts, and trouble sleeping are sufficient physical manifestations.
Richland Two argues directing a verdict was proper because Seeger's claim is a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, that plaintiffs in South Carolina can only recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in two situations, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial