Catoe v. City of Columbia

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Evalena Catoe, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Richard L. Catoe, Jr.,
deceased, Appellant,

v.

The City of Columbia and Leon Lott, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Richland County, Defendants,

Of whom Leon Lott, in his official capacity as Sheriff of
Richland County, is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000194

Appeal from Richland County
Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-547
Heard October 15, 2015 – Filed December 2, 2015

AFFIRMED

Pamela R. Mullis, of Mullis Law Firm, PA, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Robert David Garfield and Andrew F. Lindemann, both
of Davidson & Lindemann, PA, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Evalena Catoe, individually and as personal representative of her
husband's estate, appeals the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in
favor of Sheriff Leon Lott, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Richland County, in
this negligence action. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1. With respect to whether law enforcement owed a duty of care to Catoe's
husband, Richard L. Catoe, Jr.: Edwards v. Lexington Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 386
S.C. 285, 290, 688 S.E.2d 125, 128 (2010) ("An essential element in a cause of
action based upon negligence is the existence of a legal duty of care owed by the
defendant to the plaintiff. Without a duty, there is no actionable negligence."
citation omitted)); id. ("A plaintiff alleging negligence on the part of a
governmental actor or entity may rely either upon a duty created by statute or one
founded on the common law."); Wyatt v. Fowler, 326 S.C. 97, 101, 484 S.E.2d
590, 592 (1997) ("[T]he state does not owe its citizens a duty of care to proceed
without error when it brings legal action against them."); Madison ex rel Bryant v.
Babcock Ctr., Inc., 371 S.C. 123, 145, 638 S.E.2d 650, 661 (2006) ("The public
duty rule insulates public officials, employees, and governmental entities from
liability for the negligent performance of their official duties by negating the
existence of a duty towards the plaintiff."); id. (indicating the public duty rule is
applied when the alleged duty is founded upon a statute); Edwards, 386 S.C. at
290, 688 S.E.2d at 128 ("[W]hen the duty is founded on the common law, we refer
to this as a legal duty arising from 'special circumstances.'"); Faile v. S.C. Dep't of
Juvenile Justice, 350 S.C. 315, 334, 566 S.E.2d 536, 546 (2002) (recognizing five
instances in which a duty of care may arise: (1) when the defendant has a special
relationship to the victim; (2) when the defendant has a special relationship to the
injurer; (3) when the defendant voluntarily undertakes a duty; (4) when the
defendant negligently or intentionally creates the risk; and (5) when a statute
imposes a duty on the defendant).

2. With respect to whether the alleged negligent conduct was immune from
liability under section 15-78-60(6) of the South Carolina Code (2005): S.C. Code
Ann. § 15-78-60(6) (providing a governmental entity is not liable for a loss
resulting from "civil disobedience, riot, insurrection, or rebellion or the failure to
provide [or] the method of providing police or fire protection"); S.C. Code Ann. §
15-78-20(f) (2005) ("The provisions of this chapter establishing limitations on and
exemptions to the liability of the State, its political subdivisions, and employees,
while acting within the scope of official duty, must be liberally construed in favor
of limiting the liability of the State."); Huggins v. Metts, 371 S.C. 621, 624-25, 640
S.E.2d 465, 466-67 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding police conduct in negotiating with and
attempting to take custody of a man brandishing knives and threatening to harm
himself and others fell within the "method" of providing police protection as
contemplated by section 15-78-60(6)), cert. denied Oct. 18, 2007.

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.