Woodell by Allen v. Marion School Dist. One, No. 1763
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GOOLSBY; SANDERS, C.J., and LITTLEJOHN |
| Citation | 307 S.C. 297,414 S.E.2d 794 |
| Parties | , 73 Ed. Law Rep. 552 Karen Christine WOODELL, by her Guardian ad Litem Shirley ALLEN, Appellant, v. MARION SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE, Respondent. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 14 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 1763 |
Page 794
ALLEN, Appellant,
v.
MARION SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE, Respondent.
Decided Feb. 10, 1992.
Benjamin R. Matthews, Florence, for appellant.
Lawrence B. Orr, of Bridges & Orr, Florence, for respondent.
GOOLSBY, Judge:
This action by Shirley Allen as guardian ad litem for Karen Christine Woodell is brought pursuant to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10 et seq. (Supp.1990). The guardian ad litem alleges Woodell, a student at a school operated by Marion School District One, was assaulted at school by another student during school hours. The complaint charges the school district with gross negligence in supervising both Woodell and her assailant. The trial court granted the school district's motion to dismiss the complaint, which the school district made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [307 S.C. 298] SCRCP, and held section 15-78-60(20) 1 immunizes the school district from liability for a loss caused by a third party's criminal action. We reverse and remand.
As Dean Lightsey and Professor Flanagan point out in their treatise, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion "is directed to the factual and legal sufficiency of the complaint ... and only that document is considered." H. Lightsey and J. Flanagan, South Carolina Civil Procedure at 276 (1985). A court ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and it must consider the facts alleged in the complaint as true. Id.
Here, the complaint does not seek to pin liability on the school district because of the alleged criminal action of the other student; rather, as we noted above, it focuses on the school district's alleged gross negligence in supervising Woodell and the student who allegedly attacked Woodell. Cf. Greenville Memorial Auditorium v. Martin, 301 S.C. 242, 391 S.E.2d 546 (1990) (the trial judge committed no error in not dismissing an action under section 15-78-60(20) where a patron at a rock concert was struck by a bottle thrown from a balcony of a municipal auditorium because the complaint did not allege the municipality was liable for the criminal act of a third party but alleged the municipality and its employees
Page 795
were negligent in securing and maintaining the premises during the concert). A governmental entity may be liable to a...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Etheredge v. Richland School Dist. I, No. 2823.
...negligent. Grooms, 307 S.C. at 314, 414 S.E.2d at 804-05 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In Woodell v. Marion School Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 414 S.E.2d 794 (Ct.App.1992), Shirley Allen, as guardian ad litem for Karen Christine Woodell, a student who was assaulted at school by another......
-
Trancik v. USAA INS. CO, No. 3644.
...to the plaintiff, fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. See Woodell ex rel. Allen v. Marion Sch. Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 298, 414 S.E.2d 794, 794 (Ct.App.1992). However, the motion cannot be granted if the facts, and their reasonable inferences, demonstrate the p......
-
Berry v. McLeod, No. 2718
...must be resolved by the trial judge based solely on the allegations established in the complaint. See Woodell v. Marion Sch. Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 414 S.E.2d 794 (Ct.App.1992). The motion cannot be granted if the facts set forth in the complaint and the inferences reasonably drawn theref......
-
Moore by Moore v. Berkeley County School Dist., No. 2663
...risk of such third party conduct. Id. at 247, 391 S.E.2d at 549. This court cited Martin in Woodell v. Marion School Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 414 S.E.2d 794 (Ct.App.1992). There we held the trial court erred in dismissing a complaint where a student alleged that she was assaulted due to the......
-
Etheredge v. Richland School Dist. I, No. 2823.
...negligent. Grooms, 307 S.C. at 314, 414 S.E.2d at 804-05 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In Woodell v. Marion School Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 414 S.E.2d 794 (Ct.App.1992), Shirley Allen, as guardian ad litem for Karen Christine Woodell, a student who was assaulted at school by another......
-
Trancik v. USAA INS. CO, No. 3644.
...to the plaintiff, fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. See Woodell ex rel. Allen v. Marion Sch. Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 298, 414 S.E.2d 794, 794 (Ct.App.1992). However, the motion cannot be granted if the facts, and their reasonable inferences, demonstrate the p......
-
Berry v. McLeod, No. 2718
...must be resolved by the trial judge based solely on the allegations established in the complaint. See Woodell v. Marion Sch. Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 414 S.E.2d 794 (Ct.App.1992). The motion cannot be granted if the facts set forth in the complaint and the inferences reasonably drawn theref......
-
Moore by Moore v. Berkeley County School Dist., No. 2663
...risk of such third party conduct. Id. at 247, 391 S.E.2d at 549. This court cited Martin in Woodell v. Marion School Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 414 S.E.2d 794 (Ct.App.1992). There we held the trial court erred in dismissing a complaint where a student alleged that she was assaulted due to the......