Opinion ID: 1238237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: special or private duty

Text: Department argues the trial judge erred in rejecting its motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, in which it asserted the Amusement Rides Safety Code gives rise only to a public duty. No special or private duty exception to the public duty rule exists in this case; therefore, Respondents had no private cause of action, Department contends. We disagree. In a negligence action, a plaintiff must show that the (1) defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) defendant breached the duty by a negligent act or omission, (3) defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury, and (4) plaintiff suffered an injury or damages. Bishop v. South Carolina Dep't of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 502 S.E.2d 78 (1998); Shipes v. Piggly Wiggly St. Andrews, Inc., 269 S.C. 479, 238 S.E.2d 167 (1977); W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, and D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 164-65 (1984). The court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the law recognizes a particular duty. If there is no duty, then the defendant in a negligence action is entitled to a directed verdict. Ellis v. Niles, 324 S.C. 223, 479 S.E.2d 47 (1996); Sharpe v. South Carolina Dep't of Mental Health, 292 S.C. 11, 16, 354 S.E.2d 778, 781 (Ct.App.1987) (Bell, J., concurring). In Jensen v. Anderson County Dep't of Social Services, 304 S.C. 195, 403 S.E.2d 615 (1991), the Court explained the public duty rule and the six-factor test for determining whether a governmental entity owes a special or private duty to an injured plaintiff. [3] 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.... An exception to this general rule of non-liability exists when a duty is owed to individuals rather than the public only. Our Court of Appeals has developed a test comprised of six elements to determine when such a special duty exists: (1) an essential purpose of the statute is to protect against a particular kind of harm; (2) the statute, either directly or indirectly, imposes on a specific public officer a duty to guard against or not cause that harm; (3) the class of persons the statute intends to protect is identifiable before the fact; (4) the plaintiff is a person within the protected class; (5) the public officer knows or has reason to know the likelihood of harm to members of the class if he fails to do his duty; and (6) the officer is given sufficient authority to act in the circumstances or he undertakes to act in the exercise of his office. Jensen, 304 S.C. at 199-200, 403 S.E.2d at 617 (citing Parker v. Brown, 195 S.C. 35, 10 S.E.2d 625 (1940)). The public duty rule is distinguishable from a defense of immunity, which is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and can be waived. A defendant who pleads immunity conditionally admits the plaintiffs case, but asserts immunity as a bar to liability. In contrast, the public duty rule is a defense that denies an element of the plaintiffs cause of actionthe existence of a duty of care to the individual plaintiff. Wells v. City of Lynchburg, 331 S.C. 296, 307, 501 S.E.2d 746, 752 (Ct.App. 1998). In Jensen, the Court determined that child abuse statutes imposed a special duty on the local child protection agency and its social workers to investigate and intervene in cases where child abuse has been reported. Thus, a plaintiff may allege in a private cause of action that the agency failed to properly investigate a report of child abuse. See also Bellamy v. Brown, 305 S.C. 291, 408 S.E.2d 219 (1991) (holding that dismissed official could not sue government agency for breach of confidentiality under state Freedom of Information Act because Act is intended to protect public from secret government activity and did not create any special or private duty to individuals); Wells v. City of Lynchburg, supra (holding plaintiff could not sue city for failing to maintain fire hydrants because it was barred by a provision of the Tort Claims Act and city owed duty only to public generally); Summers v. Harrison Constr., 298 S.C. 451, 381 S.E.2d 493 (Ct.App.1989) (holding that statute requiring county planning department to refuse to issue building permits to unlicensed residential home builders created no special duty, such that department could be held liable for damages on the ground it negligently issued permit to builder); Rayfield v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections, 297 S.C. 95, 374 S.E.2d 910 (Ct.App.1988) (holding that statutes assigning responsibility for control of departments providing for keeping of records on prisoners created duty owed by prison and parole officials to public generally, not a special duty owed to victims murdered by recently paroled prisoner in random act of violence). We hold that the trial judge correctly ruled respondents have a private cause of action because the six-factor test from Jensen is met in this case. First, an essential purpose of the Amusement Rides Safety Code is to protect against a particular kind of harm, i.e., harm caused by poorly designed, constructed, or maintained amusement rides. The purpose of this chapter is to guard against personal injuries in the ... use of amusement devices ... to persons employed at or attending ... amusement parks, and, in the event of a personal injury, to ensure to the injured party the possibility of financial recovery as against the owner.... It is the intent of this chapter that amusement devices must be designed, constructed, assembled or disassembled, maintained, and operated so as to prevent injuries. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-20 (Supp.1998). The dissent, focusing narrowly upon the language regarding financial recovery against the owner and the necessity of liability insurance, asserts the Legislature intended to prohibit recovery against Department. We certainly agree that recovery against the owner is an important component of the Act, but it is not the sole reason for its existence. As we explain further below, a reading of the entire Act reveals the Legislature imposed numerous specific and crucial duties upon Department in order to ensure the safety of park visitors and workers. Second, the Act directly imposes on Department a duty to guard against or not cause harm to amusement park visitors and workers. No amusement device may be operated in the State without a permit issued by an appropriate Department official. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-50 (Supp.1998). Department must inspect an amusement device before issuing a permit. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-70 (Supp.1998). Department must re-inspect an amusement device after the owner notifies it of a substantial modification to the device. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-80(C) (Supp.1998). Department's director and his designees are charged with the affirmative duty of administering and enforcing the Act. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-130 (Supp.1998). Furthermore, the Act, when read in its entirety, implicitly imposes upon Department an affirmative duty to investigate promptly after receiving credible reports of suspected hazards. See Adams v. Texfi Industries, 320 S.C. 213, 464 S.E.2d 109 (1995) (in construing a statute, the reviewing court looks to its language as a whole in light of its manifest purpose). Third, the class of persons the Act intends to protect was identifiable before the fact of the injury. To meet this factor, the class must be readily identifiable in that it is distinguishable from the general public. See Jensen, supra . The Act's purpose is to prevent injuries to visitors and employees at amusement parks and fairs. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-20. Those visitors and employees usually would not constitute a readily identifiable class that is distinguishable from the general public. In this case, however, Department had received several credible reports indicating a particular amusement ride posed a significant safety threat. Members of the larger class of visitors and employees the Act is meant to protectthe riders and workers at a specific, reportedly hazardous amusement ridewere readily identifiable before the fact of the injury. Our reasoning is consistent with Jensen, supra, in which we found that a member of the larger class of persons the child abuse statutes were intended to protectin that case, a single reported victim of abusewas readily identifiable before the fact of the injury. It is not always necessary, as Department and the dissent contend, that members of the protected class actually be known by name to the governmental entity before the fact of an injury. Fourth, the plaintiffs are within the protected class. Zachary was a park visitor; Michael was employed by Beach Bungee, the owner of an amusement device licensed by Department. Fifth, Department knows or has reason to know the likelihood of harm to members of the class if it fails to do its duty. Department officials testified the winch and cable system was dangerous, and acknowledged a failure could result in multiple deaths. They conceded the system constituted a substantial modification of the licensed crawlevator. Department officials further testified they would have taken immediate steps to shut it down if they had known about it. Sixth, Department has sufficient authority to act in the circumstances. Department may revoke a permit after determining an amusement device is, among other things, being operated without the inspections required or being operated with a mechanical, electrical, structural, design, or other defect which presents an excessive risk of injury to passengers, bystanders, operators, or attendants. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-60(D)(1) and (3) (Supp.1998). Department officials may enter unannounced and inspect amusement devices at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner. They also have the right to question any owner, manager, or employee and to inspect, investigate, photograph, and sample all pertinent areas, and to examine and copy all pertinent documents and records. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-80(E) (Supp.1998). Department may impose civil penalties when an owner fails to comply with the act. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-18-150 (Supp.1998). Department's reliance upon Adkins v. Varn, 312 S.C. 188, 439 S.E.2d 822 (1993), is misplaced. In that case, a thirteenyear-old girl was fatally injured after vicious dogs chased her into a public street where she was struck and killed by an automobile. Several local residents had complained about the dogs to county animal control personnel. We affirmed the trial court's ruling that the county animal control ordinance did not create a special duty of care towards individual members of the general public. We found no legislative intent to create a special duty because the terms of the ordinance were general and did not identify a particular class of victims or a particular kind of harm. In contrast, the analysis of those factors in this case, as well as the remainder of the six-factor test, reveals the legislative intent to create a special duty.