Little v. Barnwell School District 45

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Andre Little,
by and through his legal guardian, Leon Mack, Appellant,

v.

Barnwell School
District 45 and Barnwell County Sheriff's Department, Respondents.

Appeal From Barnwell County

Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-115  

Heard January 25, 2012 – Filed February
29, 2012

AFFIRMED

R. Bentz Kirby and Glenn Walters, of
Orangeburg, for Appellant.

Allen D. Smith, Jasmine Rogers Drain, and Kenneth
L. Childs, all of Columbia, for Respondent Barnwell School District 45.

R. Morrison M.  Payne and Christy L.
Scott, both of Walterboro, for Respondent Barnwell County Sheriff's Department.

PER CURIAM: In this action under the South Carolina
Tort Claims Act arising from an interrogation about an incident at Barnwell
High School, plaintiff Andre Little, by and through his legal guardian, Leon
Mack, appeals the grant of summary judgment to Barnwell School District 45 and
the Barnwell County Sheriff's Department.  On appeal, Little argues summary
judgment to the Sheriff's Department was premature in view of (1) a conflict in
testimony concerning the behavior of the school resource officer involved in
the interrogation, (2) the school resource officer's acknowledgment that the
accusations made by Little and his family, if true, would have been evidence of
improper behavior on her part, and (3) evidence that the school resource
officer did not receive adequate training to interrogate a student.  Little
further contends summary judgment to Barnwell School District 45 was improper
because of (1) evidence purportedly showing that the principal of Barnwell High
School was not properly equipped to deal with an interrogation of a student by
student resource officers and (2) evidence that the principal failed to
intervene in the school resource officer's allegedly abusive interrogation of
Little.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(25) (2005) (stating a governmental
entity is not liable for a loss resulting from any responsibility or duty
arising from the "supervision, protection, control, confinement, or
custody of any student, . . . except when the responsibility or duty is
exercised in a grossly negligent manner"); Etheredge v. Richland Sch.
Dist. One, 341 S.C. 307, 312, 534 S.E.2d 275, 278 (2000) (stating the fact
that a governmental entity "might have done more does not negate the fact
that it exercised 'slight care'"); Richardson v. Hambright, 296
S.C. 504, 506, 374 S.E.2d 296, 298 (1988) ("Gross negligence is the
intentional, conscious failure to do something which it is incumbent upon one
to do or the doing of a thing intentionally that one ought not to do.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.