Decided March 4, 1991; Rehearing Denied April 10, 1991.




This is a  The sole issue on appeal is whether such alleged negligence may give rise to a private cause of action under the Child Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-480 et seq. We find that it may and therefore affirm the Court of Appeals' decision in Jensen v. S.C. Department of Social Services, 297 S.C. 323, 377 S.E.2d 102 (Ct. App. 1988).




This action seeks recovery for the wrongful death of a three year old child, Michael Clark, alleging that defendants' failure to properly investigate a report of child abuse involving Michael's brother resulted in Michael's death.




On February 28, 1980, the local DSS office received a report of abuse of Shane Clark from his school teacher. Shane was Michael's brother. The teacher suspected that Wayne Drawdy, the mother's boyfriend, was physically abusing the children. Charie Ann Jenkins (Jenkins), a social worker, spoke with Shane at school. She noted that Shane had unexplained bruises on his face and body and expressed a fear of Wayne Drawdy.




The Child Protection Act requires social workers to conduct "an appropriate and thorough" investigation to determine whether a report of abuse is "indicated" or "unfounded." S.S. Code Ann. § 20-7-650. If abuse is indicated, the social worker is required to petition the Family Court for the removal of the child from the home. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-736.




The evidence in this record suggests that Jenkins did not gather other information for the file nor did she locate the family. In May 1980, Jenkins and her supervisor, Susan Straup, closed the file concluding that the report was unfounded. On June 23, 1980, Drawdy beat Michael Clark to death.




Karole K. Jensen, the administratrix of Michael's estate, brought this action against Straup and Jenkins and all DSS officials within their chain of command. All of the defendants have been dismissed with the exception of Anderson County DSS, Straup and Jenkins.




The Court of Appeals found that the Act imposes upon the local child protection agency and its social workers a special


DISCUSSION




Generally, there is no common law duty to act. An affirmative legal duty, however, may be created by statute, contract relationship, status, property interest, or some other special circumstance. Many statutes impose a duty on public officials to perform certain acts. Generally, however, such officials enjoy an immunity from a private cause of action under the public duty rule. This rule holds that public officials are generally not liable to individuals for their negligence in discharging public duties as the duty is owed to the public at large rather than anyone individually.




The public duty rule was originally adopted by this Court in Parker v. Brown, 195 S.C. 35, 10 S.E.2d 625 (1940).




      The law necessarily grants certain discretion to its officers
      in handling the public business. In one instance it
      may be wise for a public officer to pursue one course, in
      another instance, another course. Those charged with
      protecting the public interest should view that interest as
      supreme, should consider what is best for the public, and
      should be free at all times to prosecute the course that
      appears to be in the public interest. . . . It is well settled
      that an individual has no right of action against a public
      officer for breach of a duty owing to the public only, even
      though such individual be specially injured thereby.
      Where a duty is owing to the public only, an officer is not
      liable to an individual who may have b

Page 1 2 3 4 
South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
						  
						Personal Injury Lawyers