Myles v. Main-Waters Enterprises, LLC
| Decision Date | 22 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | 2011-UP-112 |
| Parties | James L. Myles, III, Appellant, v. Main-Waters Enterprises, LLC, Main-Waters Management, Inc. and City of Orangeburg, Defendants, Of Whom, Main-Waters Enterprises, LLC and Main-Waters Management, Inc. are the, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted January 4, 2011
Appeal From Orangeburg County, Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge
John W. Carrigg, Jr., of Columbia; and John E. Parker and Grahame E. Holmes, of Hampton, for Appellant.
Weston Adams, III, Helen F. Hiser, M. McMullen Taylor and Charles O Williams, III, all of Columbia, for Respondents.
James L. Myles, III, appeals the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Main-Waters Enterprises, LLC and Main-Waters Management, Inc. (Main-Waters). Myles argues the circuit court erred in ruling (1) Myles was unable to establish a prima facie case of defamation, (2) Myles failed to establish a claim for false arrest, and (3) Myles failed to establish a claim of negligence. We affirm[1] on all three points.
This appeal arises out of a physical altercation that occurred in a McDonald's restaurant parking lot in Orangeburg, South Carolina. On the night of the incident, Myles left a local bar with his fiancée, Wendy Summers, [2] and another couple. All four rode together in a Ford Explorer. The other couple, Scott Dyches and his wife Julie Jackson, began arguing while riding in the Explorer. At some point during the argument, Scott exited the Explorer and began walking along the side of the road. Jackson then called Michael Dyches, Scott's father, to come and pick Scott up.
After Michael picked up his son Scott, a fight ensued between the father and son regarding whether Scott should continue to stay out or go home. Michael pulled into the McDonald's parking lot where Myles, Jackson, and Summers were waiting in the drive-thru line to pick up their food. When Scott saw his wife, he stood up in the seat of his father's Ford Mustang convertible and began yelling. Michael "popped" Scott either on his leg or in his stomach and the father and son began to physically fight. Witnesses testified Scott was on top of Michael choking him, while Michael lay pinned between the bucket seats of his convertible. Myles exited the Explorer and pulled Scott out of the convertible to break up the fight.[3]
Officer Robert Hill was the first to respond to the incident, and he encountered Scott running along Highway 301 near the McDonald's. Officer Hill noted Scott appeared disheveled and intoxicated. Scott admitted to being involved in an altercation with his father at McDonald's. Officer Hill proceeded to the McDonald's and continued to interview Scott and Michael Dyches.[4] Michael Dyches also appeared disheveled and intoxicated. Once both father and son admitted to fighting outside of the McDonald's, Officer Hill arrested both men.
When asked if anyone else was involved in the fight, Scott told Officer Hill that he saw Myles "coming towards him" and then "his eyes went closed" before he was beaten about the face and head. Officer Hill noted Scott did not actually see Myles hit him. Officer Hill interviewed Myles after arresting the Dyches. According to Myles, he saw the Dyches fighting and "went and started trying to break them up." Officer Hill noted Myles's account was consistent with Michael Dyches's account, and Scott was unsure if Myles was actively involved in the fight or not. Therefore, Officer Hill did not intend to arrest Myles based solely on Scott's account of the incident.
At some point during the police investigation, an unidentified McDonald's employee[5] called Officer Hill over to the drive-thru window and informed him that Myles was also involved in the altercation. The employee's account varied significantly from the other witnesses' accounts. Specifically, the young woman told Officer Hill that Michael and Myles drove up in a red convertible, approached the Explorer where Scott was waiting in the drive-thru line, and pulled him out of the vehicle and began beating him. Officer Hill testified that on the night of the incident no one other than the unidentified McDonald's employee told him Myles was actively involved in the fight. However, Officer Hill explained that drive-thru workers are "some of your better witnesses because they see everything, especially at 3 o'clock in the morning on Saturday night they get cussed at more than we do."
Prior to speaking with the unidentified female employee, Officer Hill was prepared to let Myles leave the scene as long as he did not drive.[6] As a result of the young woman's account, however, the police decided to arrest Myles for fighting, along with Scott and Michael. Myles was initially calm as the police began to handcuff him. However, Summers began screaming profanities at the police and became visibly agitated when the arresting officers began to handcuff Myles. Upon seeing the officers forcibly detain Summers by leaning her over the hood of a patrol car to handcuff her, Myles became enraged. Myles began yelling at the officers and physically resisting arrest, saying "that's a female." One of the officers deployed his taser two times on Myles, [7] and the police were able to handcuff Myles and place him in the back of a patrol car.
Myles subsequently brought a lawsuit against the entities that own and operate the McDonald's restaurant where this incident occurred, namely, Main-Waters Enterprises, LLC, Main-Waters Management, Inc., and Main-Waters Enterprises Partnership LLP.[8] Myles also sued the City of Orangeburg and the three Orangeburg Public Safety Department officers who responded to the incident.[9] Myles alleged slander false arrest and imprisonment, and negligence against all parties. Myles claimed damage to his reputation as a result of the false statement by a Main-Waters employee concerning Myles's involvement in the fight between Michael and Scott Dyches, which resulted in Myles's allegedly unfounded arrest by the City of Orangeburg. Myles also claimed he suffered a serious and permanent injury as a result of being tased, forcing him to retire and incur $1, 069, 854 as a result of his loss of earning capacity.
During discovery, witness deposition testimony diverged regarding what happened after Myles pulled Scott from the convertible. Michael Dyches, Scott Dyches, Julie Jackson (Scott's wife), Wendy Summers, and Myles all testified Myles's only involvement in the altercation was pulling Scott out of the convertible and away from Michael. Letonya Jones, the McDonald's shift manager, testified she saw all three men fighting, and she recalled seeing Myles punch at least one of the other two men. Asheria Shuler, another McDonald's employee, also testified all three men were fighting and noted either Scott or Michael punched Myles as he tried to break up the fight.
Following the completion of discovery, Main-Waters moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the circuit court granted Main-Waters' motion for summary judgment on all three claims. Myles subsequently filed a timely motion to alter or amend, which the circuit court summarily denied. This appeal followed.
This court reviews the grant of a summary judgment motion under the same standard applied by the circuit court under Rule 56(c), SCRCP. Jackson v. Bermuda Sands, Inc., 383 S.C. 11, 14 n.2, 677 S.E.2d 612, 614 n.2 (Ct. App. 2009). Rule 56(c), SCRCP, provides summary judgment shall be granted where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
In ascertaining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Belton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 360 S.C. 575, 578, 602 S.E.2d 389, 391 (2004). "[I]n cases applying the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof, the non-moving party is only required to submit a mere scintilla of evidence in order to withstand a motion for summary judgment." Hancock v. Mid-South Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 330, 673 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2009).
1. Did the circuit court err in ruling Myles failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation?
2. Did the circuit court err in ruling Myles failed to establish a claim of false arrest?
3. Did the circuit court err in ruling Myles failed to establish a claim of negligence?
LAW / ANALYSIS
Myles argues the circuit court erred in finding the Main-Waters employee's statements were "substantially true." We disagree. The truth of the matter published is a complete defense to an action based on defamation. Ross v. Columbia Newspapers, Inc., 266 S.C. 75, 80, 221 S.E.2d 770, 772 (1976). A sufficient defense is made out where the evidence establishes that the statement was substantially true. Id. "It is not necessary to establish the literal truth of the precise statement made." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 581A (1977). "Slight inaccuracies of expression are immaterial provided that the defamatory charge is true in substance." Id.
Myles contends the employee's statement was false because he was not actually fighting but merely intervened in a fight between Scott and Michael Dyches to stop the fight. However during his deposition testimony, Myles admitted that he "just basically drag drug [Scott] out the car." In addition, while riding in the patrol car after his arrest, Myles told one of the arresting officers: "I grabbed [Scott], I grabbed him and threw...
To continue reading
Request your trial