Doe-3 v. Horry County et al, No. 4:2016cv02576 - Document 72 (D.S.C. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable A Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr on 7/2/18.(swel, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Doe-3 v. Horry County et al Doc. 72 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION ) Jane Doe-3, ) C/A No. 4:16-cv-02576-AMQ ) ) Plaintiff, ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Horry County, South Carolina, Horry County ) Police Department, Saundra Rhodes, Scott ) Rutherford, William Squires, and Dale ) Buchanan, ) ) ) Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Horry County and Horry County Police Department (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 43.) The matter has been fully briefed, and the Court heard argument from counsel on May 21, 2015. For the following reasons, the Court hereby grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jane Doe-3 (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 13, 2016, in the Horry County Court of Common Pleas. (ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants removed the case to this Court on September 16, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Generally, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action against Horry County, the Horry County Police Department (“HCPD”), and multiple individually named defendants alleging negligence/gross negligence related to the alleged actions of former HCPD detective Troy Allen Large (“Detective Large”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the individually named defendants. (ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a single cause of action against Defendants alleging negligence/gross negligence in the following particulars: Dockets.Justia.com a. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to protect Plaintiff from harm at the hands of its personnel, agents, officers, and/or employees; b. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to properly train and/or supervise its personnel, agents, officers, and/or employees; c. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to draft and/or institute proper policy and procedure with regard to the hiring and evaluation of its police officers; d. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to draft and/or institute proper policy and procedure necessary to ensure that members of the public are safe and protected from physical abuse and threatening behavior; e. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to draft and/or institute proper policy and procedure that would lead to the discovery of inappropriate, threatening actions by its employees and prevent the same from occurring; f. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to make periodic and proper investigations and take remedial action as might be necessary to prevent inappropriate and/or threatening actions; g. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to take appropriate time to follow-up, review and/or check compliance with policy, state law and/or existing orders; h. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to take steps necessary to remove, fire and/or terminate the services of staff and/or personnel, including Detective Large, when they had actual and/or constructive notice of his propensities; i. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to properly supervise Detective Large; j. In failing to exercise reasonable or slight care to provide Plaintiff with proper protection from abuse (both physical and mental) at the hands of their police officer when it had notice of their officer’s propensities towards inappropriate and/or abusive behavior; k. In conducting themselves in an egregious and arbitrary manner; l. In threatening, physically assaulting and/or abusing Plaintiff; m. In breaching their fiduciary duty of trust with regard to Plaintiff; 2 n. In failing to follow and adhere to the local state and national standards, policies and procedures including the policies and procedures of the Horry County Police Department; o. In failing to follow and adhere to the policies and procedures of the Horry County Police Department regarding threatening behavior; p. In engaging in a pattern and practice of allowing and/or condoning inappropriate conduct on th HCPD officials regarding their concerns. Id. While Defendant argues that this letter constitutes inadmissible hearsay, the Court makes no finding about the ultimate admissibility of the letter at this time. However, it is at least possible that the letter is not inadmissible hearsay or that some hearsay exceptions might apply. For example, Plaintiff may argue the letter for the purpose of establishing notice to Defendants rather than to establish the truth of the matters asserted in the letter. Second, Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendants conducted an “in-house,” off-the books investigation into Detective Large beginning in March 2014 after a confidential informant reported that Detective Large was frequenting the home of Jane Doe-12, a home under active investigation by the Horry County Drug Enforcement Unit. (Confidential Exhibit 10, Page 39, Lines 10-22; Confidential 11; Confidential Exhibit 15; Confidential Exhibit 17). Detective Large’s supervisors did not interview Detective Large, Jane Doe-1 or the confidential informant as part of the “in-house” investigation, nor did they report the incident to the Office of Professional Standards/Internal Affairs. (Confidential Exhibit 10, Page 40, Line 24 – Page 43 2 Jane Doe-1 contacted the HCPD to report that she was the victim of a sexual assault on or about December 24, 2013. Detective Large was assigned to the case and first contacted December 27, 2013. (Confidential Exhibit 17). Jane Doe-1 alleges that Detective Large engaged in a course of inappropriate behavior including unwanted sexual advances and sexual assault over the following six months. (Confidential Exhibit 9). 9 Line 10). The investigation resulted in Detective Large’s supervisors placing a GPS tracking device on Detective Large’s police vehicle. (Confidential Exhibit 12, Page 65, Lines 2-25). However, it does not appear that HCPD took any further action concerning the allegations at that time. With regards to this “in-house” investigation, Plaintiff’s law enforcement expert, Dr. Timothy Maher (“Dr. Maher”), opines that the report of Detective Large’s visits to Jane Doe-1’s residence should have initiated a formal investigation by the Office of Professional Standards or the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. (Confidential Exhibit 8). Third, Plaintiff presents evidence that the HCPD conducted a formal Internal Affairs investigation in June 2014 after Jane Doe-1 reported Detective Large’s alleged sexual misconduct directly to HCPD after her arrest for drug related charges. (Confidential Exhibit 15). The HCPD closed the investigation as unfounded at the direction of Chief of Police Saundra Rhodes. Id. Although HCPD closed the investigation as unfounded, the investigative report indicated the following: (1) Detective Large admitted to having paid for Jane-Doe-1’s prescription medications on several occasions; (2) Detective Large was frequenting Jane-Doe 1’s home after her case was closed by Detective Large as unfounded; (3) Jane Doe-1 reported to a Horry County employee that Detective Large attempted to touch her inappropriately; and (4) that Detective Large had called Jane Doe-1’s cell phone approximately 80 times between the period of December 2013 and May 2014. (Confidential Exhibit 15; Confidential Exhibit 16). Plaintiff’s expert opines that these findings in the Internal Affairs Investigation were sufficient to place a reasonable supervisory officer on notice that Detective Large was abusing his authority as a law enforcement officer and that this abuse of authority was most likely related to his sexual desires. (Confidential Exhibit 8). Defendants argue that this investigation is irrelevant because HCPD ultimately closed this investigation as “unfounded.” However, viewing this evidence in the light 10 most favorable to Plaintiff, coupled with Plaintiff’s expert report stating that the factual findings in the investigation were sufficient to place a reasonable supervisory officer on notice that Detective Large was abusing his authority with female victims, the Court finds that this evidence does go to the issue of notice to Defendants. Fourth, Plaintiff also presents evidence that HCPD received reports regarding Detective Large’s alleged inappropriate behavior with Jane Doe-4 (“Doe-4”). Doe-4 came into contact with Detective Large in the fall of 2014. (Confidential Exhibit 19, Page 21 Lines 19-23). Doe-4 alleges that she had intermittent contact with Detective Large from the Fall of 2014 until she entered a drug rehab facility in February of 2015. (Confidential Exhibit 19, Page 54, Lines 3-16). Doe-4 ultimately made allegations that Detective Large sexually assaulted her during the Fall of 2014. (Confidential Exhibit, Page 35, Lines 11-25). However, prior to Doe-4 making that allegation, her mother raised concerns about Detective Large with the HCPD. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Page 51, Line 15 – Page 52, Line 20). Doe-4’s mother testified that she spoke with a male police officer identifying himself as Detective Large’s supervisor and reported that Detective Large had been picking up her daughter and bringing her home high on drugs. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Page 52, Line 20 – Page 54, Line 25). She also expressed concerns that Detective Large had taken a liking to her daughter. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Page 55, Lines 9-19). Detective Large’s supervisor then took her name and informed Plaintiff’s mother that he would look into the matter. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Page 55, Lines 20-23). Although Doe-4’s mother cannot pinpoint the date that she called Detective Large’s supervisor, it appears from the evidence presented that the call took place sometime between the Fall of 2014 and February 2015 when Doe-4 checked into a drug rehab facility. 11 Fifth, the Defendant presents evidence that the HCPD opened a formal Internal Affairs investigation into Large on or about July 13, 2015 to investigate allegations made by Jane Doe-2 (“Doe-2”). (Confidential Exhibit 4). Specifically, Doe-2 alleged that while Detective Large was assigned to investigate her case involving criminal sexual conduct, he offered to pay her to let him watch her fight other women and talked about paying her for oral sex, among other things. Id. HCPD sustained the allegations made by Doe-2 on August 19, 2015. Id. HCPD later referred the case to the State Law Enforcement Division for further investigation. (Confidential Exhibit 2). It is unclear what immediate actions HCPD took with regard to Detective Large, if any, in the wake of the Internal Affairs investigation. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden in showing that there are genuine factual issues that can only be properly resolved by a finder of fact with regards to the negligent supervision claim asserted by Plaintiff. C. Public Duty Rule To the extent that Defendants’ motion seeks summary judgment relating to specific allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint on the basis of the Public Duty Rule, Defendants’ motion is denied. In light of the Court’s ruling that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the negligent supervision portion of their general negligence/gross negligence claim, Defendants’ other bases for summary judgment related to other specific allegations in Plaintiff’s negligence/gross negligence claim are inapposite. See Greene v. Life Care Ctrs., Inc., 586 F.Supp.2d 589, 594 (D.S.C.2008) (“A party is simply not entitled to summary judgment if the judgment would not be dispositive of an entire claim.”). 12 CONCLUSION Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden in showing that there are genuine factual issues that can only be properly resolved by a finder of fact with respect to the negligent supervision portion of Plaintiff’s negligence/gross negligence claim. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to hold Defendant vicariously liable for Detective Large’s intentional conduct, Defendants’ Motion is granted. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. United States District Judge July 2, 2018 Greenville, South Carolina 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
