Court Opinion

ID: 9851275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:09:42.66602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:52.825307
License: Public Domain

Alexander S. Macaulay, Acting Associate Justice,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur with Justice Toal, and respectfully dissent. Inasmuch as there is “a duty to warn . . . when a person being released from custody has made a specific threat of harm directed at a specific individual,” as held by the majority, I agree that there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury.
*259This was not a case where the victim was not known to the perpetrator, Sharpe v. S.C. Dept. of Mental Health, 292 S.C. 11, 354 S.E. (2d) 78 (Ct. App. 1987). In this case there was evidence that Vandroff had made specific threats of harm against Doris, housebreaking and larceny of her home, which was why he had been incarcerated. See Rayfield v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, 297 S.C. 95, 374 S.E. (2d) 910 (Ct. App. 1988), cert. denied, 298 S.C. 204, 379 S.E. (2d) 133 (1989). It makes no difference whether the home was owned by Doris or the Respondent individually, housebreaking is a crime against possession rather than property. State v. Miller, 225 S.C. 21, 80 S.E. (2d) 354 (1954).
There having been a specific threat, a manifested propensity to violate the sanctity of one’s home, State v. Brooks, 277 S.C. 111, 283 S.E. (2d) 830 (1981), directed at a specific individual, Doris and her family, Rogers v. S.C. Dept. of Mental Health, 297 S.C. 363, 377 S.E. (2d) 125 (Ct. App. 1989), the existence of the legal duty of care was established in this case; and it then became questions of fact for the trier of fact to determine “whether the defendant failed to observe the standard of care required by law” and “whether [the] conduct proximately caused damage to the plaintiff.” Sharpe v. S.C. Dept. of Mental Health, supra, 354 S.E. (2d) at 781 (Bell, J., concurring).
I would affirm.