Mcbride v. Sch. Dist. Of Greenville County

Decision Date04 August 2010
Docket NumberNo. 4718.,4718.
CitationMcBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 389 S.C. 546, 698 S.E.2d 845, 259 Ed. Law Rep. 918 (S.C. App. 2010)
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesSherrie Mann MCBRIDE, Appellant,v.SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, Respondent.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro and David Lloyd Thomas of Greenville, for Appellant.

N. Heyward Clarkson, III, Sean A. Scoopmire and John D. Harjehausen, of Greenville, for Respondent.

GEATHERS, J.

Appellant Sherrie Mann McBride (McBride) brought this action against Respondent School District of Greenville County (the District), asserting causes of action for breach of contract, wrongful discharge, defamation of character, abuse of process, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence. McBride challenges the circuit court's order granting a directed verdict for the District on her causes of action for defamation of character, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts in the light most favorable to McBride are as follows. McBride began her teaching career in August 2000 as a special education teacher at Berea High School in Greenville County. Near the end of the 2001-2002 school year, she also served as a teacher for a home-bound student, John Doe (Doe), 1 for approximately six weeks. Doe, whom McBride and others understood to be homosexual, was home-bound because he had been having anxiety attacks whenever he attended classes on campus. His anxiety attacks stemmed from the emotional trauma he experienced from being sexually abused by a teacher while attending Greenville Technical Charter High School. Between the time he attended this school and the time he began attending Berea High School, he attempted suicide and was committed to the state mental hospital. During the time McBride served as Doe's home-bound teacher, they developed an emotional bond.

Doe resumed class attendance for the 2002-2003 school year, but he was not in any of McBride's classes. Nevertheless he visited McBride on an increasingly frequent basis. At this time, he was still experiencing anxiety and began cutting himself. On one occasion he showed McBride cuts extending the length of his arms, and she consulted another teacher for guidance on how to handle the situation.

After this incident, according to McBride, the school guidance counselor and Doe's teachers worked out an arrangement allowing Doe to stay in McBride's classroom during one of his morning classes and one of his afternoon classes, provided he obtain his assignments at the beginning of class time and return his work to his teachers at the end of class time. During his time in McBride's classroom, when he was not working on his assignments, he helped McBride with lesson planning, grading papers, setting up computer equipment, and performing other tasks related to McBride's classes.

At the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, Doe continued to stay in McBride's classroom during some of his classes. He frequently complained of being abused by his parents and expressed a desire to run away from home. He began storing clothing in a file drawer in McBride's classroom and requested advice about becoming emancipated from his parents. McBride did not give him any advice about becoming emancipated, but Doe consulted the school resource officer, Deputy Daniel Oslager, on the topic. Deputy Oslager was an employee of the Greenville County Sheriff's Department.

In mid-September, McBride took Doe with her on an errand after school to buy educational supplies and allowed him to drive her car. Doe's mother had given him permission to accompany McBride, but she became angry when McBride brought him home after his 7 p.m. curfew. Several days later, McBride allowed Doe to drive her car after school hours on what she thought would be a very short trip to a grocery store near the school. Although Doe only had a learner's permit to drive, McBride thought he had a license with full driving privileges. Doe drove McBride's car to pick up his friend, Chris Boehmke (Chris), at his house and to take him back to the school.

Later that afternoon, McBride gave Doe and Chris a ride to Chris' house. She was under the impression that Chris was merely having a sleepover at his house because she knew that Doe had been going home with Chris on Fridays on a regular basis. However, Doe had decided to run away from home that weekend. He planned on staying at Chris' house on Friday night, then traveling to Marietta, Georgia to live with his aunt.

When McBride arrived at Chris' house, she went inside and spoke with his mother, Linda Boehmke. Mrs. Boehmke became upset when Doe mentioned that he wanted to run away from home. McBride told Mrs. Boehmke that Doe “says stuff like that all the time” and that she did not think that Doe's aunt was going to come to Greenville to take him home with her. McBride also told Mrs. Boehmke to telephone her if she had any concerns later that night and that McBride could then contact Deputy Oslager.

Later that night, Doe's mother went to the Boehmkes' house looking for Doe. Mrs. Boehmke was concerned about Doe's allegations of being abused by his parents, so she told his mother that he was not there. Doe's mother also telephoned McBride and left a voice mail message asking if she knew where Doe was. McBride did not check her voice mail messages until the next day, and she failed to return the call.

The next day, McBride found Doe sitting on her door step. He told her that he was trying to run away from home but that Mrs. Boehmke had made him leave her house. McBride allowed Doe to enter her home, but she telephoned Deputy Oslager to report that Doe was trying to run away from home. Deputy Oslager advised McBride to call the sheriff's office. McBride did so, and an officer later arrived at her house to pick up Doe. The officer later returned Doe to his parents.

A few days later, McBride noticed that her car was missing from the school parking lot. As she was standing there, Deputy Oslager arrived and asked McBride what was going on. When she told him that her car had been stolen, he began taking notes. She then realized that Doe might have been the one who took her car. She advised Oslager of this possibility but said that she did not want to press charges. Oslager insisted that either Doe would be charged with an offense for taking the car or McBride would be charged for allowing him to drive it. McBride then reluctantly allowed Oslager to charge Doe with taking the car. A few minutes later, Doe drove McBride's vehicle into the parking lot. Oslager removed Doe from the car and arrested him. When Doe's mother arrived at the scene, she demanded that McBride stay away from her son.

The school principal, William Roach (Roach) questioned Doe, after which Oslager took him to the law enforcement center for further questioning. During questioning, Doe told Oslager that McBride had allowed him to drive her car on previous occasions, that she had written passes for him to get out of classes, and that she had given him passwords to access various school computer systems. Oslager telephoned Roach several times to consult with him about these statements. Doe also told Oslager that McBride knew he was running away from home when she took him to Chris Boehmke's house. Oslager communicated this information to his supervisor, Sergeant Shea Smith, who began an investigation into McBride's conduct.

Sergeant Smith assigned Deputy Leslie Lambert to be the lead investigator. Oslager assisted Lambert in taking statements from teachers, including McBride herself, and other school staff members. Deputy Lambert presented the information gathered from the investigation to the solicitor's office. Deputy Solicitor Betty Strom and assistant solicitor Howard Steinberg agreed that the charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and enticing an enrolled child from school attendance should be taken to a magistrate for a determination of probable cause to arrest McBride. A magistrate issued corresponding arrest warrants, and assistant solicitor John Rowell signed an indictment charging McBride with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 2 The grand jury true billed this indictment, and Deputy Oslager later arrested McBride.

Oslager took McBride to the law enforcement center, where she was booked and fingerprinted. She was later released on bond, and the criminal charges were ultimately dropped. However, the District's superintendent recommended to the Board of Trustees that McBride be terminated. The Board voted to accept the recommendation.

Several local television stations reported McBride's arrest and quoted sheriff's office investigators regarding allegations that she allowed Doe to drive her car, helped him run away from home, and signed him out of class. The newscasts described McBride's relationship with Doe as “bizarre” and implied that students could not be safe with McBride. One of the stories quoted the superintendent as saying that he was going to recommend McBride for termination. Another story quoted unidentified teachers as saying “There is a lot of gray area” in drawing the line in a relationship with a student.

After McBride was dismissed from Berea High School, the District's equipment that had been allotted to her classroom was transferred to her colleagues' classrooms. One of her colleagues heard Roach accuse McBride of stealing this equipment when he stated She cleaned us out.”

McBride filed this action against the District and Roach, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, wrongful discharge, defamation of character, abuse of process, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligence per se, and gross...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
57 cases
  • Meyer v. McGowan, C/A No. 2:16-cv-00777-RMG-MGB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • August 16, 2018
    ...fairly construed to encompass every instance of any intentional tort." Id. at 437. See, e.g., McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty., 389 S.C. 546, 563-66, 698 S.E.2d 845, 854-55 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding causes of action for abuse of process and malicious prosecution are not barred by § 1......
  • Magwood v. Streetman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • August 15, 2016
    ... ... Milla v. Colleton County Sheriff's Office , No. 15-1253, 2015 WL 2172681 at * 1 ... 2006) (internal cites omitted); but see also McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty. , 698 S.E.2d 845, 856 ... ...
  • Carter v. Bryant
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 2020
    ...cause supported the warrant for Carter's arrest. Accordingly, we reverse as to this issue. See McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty. , 389 S.C. 546, 567, 698 S.E.2d 845, 856 (Ct. App. 2010) (affirming directed verdict as to malicious prosecution claim where witness statements supported f......
  • Newkirk v. Enzor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 8, 2017
    ...tort Mrs. Newkirk alleges could be committed without actual malice or intent to harm. See , e.g. , McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty. , 389 S.C. 546, 698 S.E.2d 845, 855 (2010) ("[O]ne need not show actual malice in order to successfully maintain an action for malicious prosecution. T......
  • Get Started for Free
21 books & journal articles
  • VOLUME I Chapter 4 Employment-Related Torts
    • United States
    • South Carolina Bar Labor and Employment Law for South Carolina Lawyers, Volumes I and II (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...286 at 304 (2006).[77] See Watson v. Wannamaker, 216 S.C. 295, 57 S.E.2d 477 (1950); Rodgers v. Wise, 193 S.C. 5, 7 S.E.2d 517 (1940).[78] 389 S.C. 546, 698 S.E.2d 845 (Ct. App. 2010).[79] See, e.g., Tyler v. Macks Stores of S.C., Inc., 275 S.C. 456, 272 S.E.2d 633 (1980).[80] Manley v. Man......
  • C. Elements Defined
    • United States
    • Elements of Civil Causes of Action (SCBar) 28 Malicious Prosecution
    • Invalid date
    ...claim and held true even though plaintiff was not convicted of any crime).[13] McBride v. School District of Greenville County, 389 S.C. 546, 698 S.E.2d 845 (Ct. App. 2010) (grand jury true bill of indictment was prima facie evidence of probable cause and information in several witness stat......
  • 27 Malicious Prosecution
    • United States
    • Elements of Civil Causes of Action (SCBar) (2015 Ed.)
    • Invalid date
    ...claim and held true even though plaintiff was not convicted of any crime).[12] McBride v. School District of Greenville County, 389 S.C. 546, 698 S.E.2d 845 (Ct. App. 2010) (grand jury true bill of indictment was prima facie evidence of probable cause and information in several witness stat......
  • A. Interference with Persons
    • United States
    • The South Carolina Law of Torts (SCBar) Chapter 6 Intentional Torts
    • Invalid date
    ...301 S.C. 62, 389 S.E.2d 662 (1990) (noting South Carolina follows minority rule); see also McBride v. Greenville Cnty. Sch. Dist., 389 S.C. 546, 698 S.E.2d 845 (Ct. App. 2010); Law v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 368 S.C. 424, 629 S.E.2d 642 (2006) (granting JNOV on false imprisonment claim where p......
  • Get Started for Free