Opinion ID: 2507838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Civil Liability Under the Reporter's Statute

Text: Appellant first argues the circuit court erred in finding Wal-Mart did not have any civil liability for failing to report the suspected child abuse as required by the South Carolina Reporter's Statute. We disagree. The Reporter's Statute provides, in pertinent part: . . . [P]ersons responsible for processing films . . . must report in accordance with this section when in the person's professional capacity the person has received information which gives the person reason to believe that a child has been or may be abused or neglected as defined in Section 63-7-20. [2] S.C.Code Ann. § 63-7-310(A) (Supp.2010). In Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 645 S.E.2d 245 (2007), the Court found there could be no private right of action for failing to report suspected or known child abuse in accordance with § 63-7-310. In deciding whether § 63-7-310 gives rise to a private cause of action for negligence per se, the Court noted the main factor in determining whether a statute creates a private cause of action is legislative intent: The legislative intent to grant or withhold a private right of action for violation of a statute or the failure to perform a statutory duty, is determined primarily from the language of the statute.... In this respect, the general rule is that a statute which does not purport to establish a civil liability, but merely makes provision to secure the safety or welfare of the public as an entity is not subject to a construction establishing civil liability. Id. at 396, 645 S.E.2d at 248 (quoting Dorman v. Aiken Communications, Inc., 303 S.C. 63, 67, 398 S.E.2d 687, 689 (1990)). The Court first observed § 63-7-310 is silent as to civil liability for failure to report. Noting other provisions in the Reporter's Statute do impose civil liability, [3] the Court found the legislature's silence as to civil liability in § 63-7-310 indicated its intent not to create civil liability for failing to report as required. Id. at 397, 645 S.E.2d at 249 (citing Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 433-34, 468 S.E.2d 861, 865 (1996) (finding when one provision does not include a right that is included in a related provision, legislative intent is that a right will not be implied where it does not exist)). Further, the Court looked to the purpose of the Children's Code and determined § 63-7-310 is concerned with the protection of the public and not with the protection of an individual's private right. Id. at 398, 645 S.E.2d at 249. The Court also noted other jurisdictions have interpreted similar statutes and reached the same conclusion. Id. at 198 n. 4, 645 S.E.2d at 249 n. 4. Because, consonant with Doe v. Marion , there can be no private cause of action under § 63-7-310, we find the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in favor of respondent as to this claim.