The SC Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that may prove useful for defense lawyers and their clients involved in negligence cases.  Whether the case involves an incident at a nursing home or an automobile accident, the Court clarified five narrow exceptions to the general rule that a defendant cannot be liable for “failing” to act.

Attorney Cameron Stephenson states that the SC Court of Appeals reversed a Circuit Court Order in a bench trial involving a wrongful death/survival action of a nursing home resident. Appellant (“Nursing Home”) appealed the $1,000,000 order in favor of Respondent (“Decedent”). The main issue was whether the Nursing Home voluntarily assumed a duty to regularly check in on the Decedent, who resided at the Nursing Home’s facility. This case is helpful for defendants in negligence cases, and its applicability touches any sort of negligence. The law in South Carolina is clear that a defendant can only be held liable for omissions in five, narrow categories.

Decedent broke her hip after falling from a rocking chair while hanging curtains in her room. Nursing Home’s staff did not find Decedent until approximately three days after her fall. Decedent passed away roughly eight months later, and her Estate alleged a theory of “long lie” as a cause of her death. A “long lie” is a medical condition that occurs when an elderly person is left immobile after a fall for an extended period as they await rescue.

The Court held, as a matter of law, that the Nursing Home did not owe Decedent a duty and reversed the Circuit Court’s Order. For a plaintiff to prove a negligence case, he or she must prove 1) that defendant owed plaintiff a duty, 2) defendant breached a duty through his or her acts or omissions, and 3) the breach proximately caused, 4) damages. Generally, under South Carolina law, a person generally has no duty to protect a third-party for conduct that the person did not create. However, the Court reiterated the five main exceptions to this rule:

“(1) where the defendant has a special relationship to the victim; (2) where the defendant has a special relationship to the injurer; (3) where the defendant voluntarily undertakes a duty; (4) where the defendant negligently or intentionally creates the risk; and (5) where a statute imposes a duty on the defendant.”

The third exception, voluntary undertaking, was the main issue in this case.

The Court held that that the Nursing Home did not voluntarily undertake a duty by adopting an internal policy to check on residents daily. The Court reiterated prior case law that internal policies do not create duties, but rather, provide the “contours” of the defendants’ reasonableness once the duty has been established. These contours are typically known as the “standard of care”.

Additionally, the Court held that there was no evidence that Decedent relied upon either the panic button or the daily check-in policy before standing on the rocking chair to hang curtains. Decedent was diagnosed with mental health conditions, which unfortunately manifested as delusions and paranoia. The delusions and paranoia prompted Decedent to request that the Nursing Home refrain from checking in on her without her permission. Decedent did not wear the panic button.

The Court vacated the $1,000,000 award and directed judgment to the Nursing Home. The case is The Estate of Delila Parrott v. Sandpiper Independent and Assisted Living-Delaware, LLC, Opinion No. 6067 (June 26, 2024).