Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

212. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

213. Defendants by and through their contact with Plaintiff, as described above, negligently and/or recklessly committed multiple acts of extreme and outrageous conduct which caused severe emotional, psychological, and psychiatric injuries, distress, and harm to Plaintiff, which also manifested in physical injuries to Plaintiff as set forth above in an extreme, outrageous, and harmful manner.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VIII – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, Plaintiff v. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber and John Does 1-20” in this series, is forthcoming.

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

198. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

199. At all relevant times, Defendant Weber was assigned to the LC DA’s Office as an agent, employee, servant, and/or staff member of LC.

200. At all relevant times, Defendant Weber, as a law enforcement agent of LC, was a mandated reporter pursuant to 63 Pa.C.S. § 6311, et seq.

201. At all relevant times, Defendants LC and Weber owed a duty to investigate reports of criminal activity, including sexual abuse, and, specifically, the sexual abuse of Plaintiff

202. Defendant LC knew, had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice of the conduct of Weber, who failed to investigate and/or refer for investigation reports of child sexual abuse, including Plaintiff. Yet Defendant LC failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent Weber from dereliction of his duties as a law enforcement officer tasked with reporting and investigating allegations of child sexual abuse.

203. Furthermore, at no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendant LC have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor its employees, agents, and/or staff to ensure allegations of child sexual abuse were reported and investigated.

204. Moreover, as set forth above, the abuse of Plaintiff was purposefully shielded from the appropriate authorities. For years, Defendant LC failed to do anything to properly investigate Plaintiff’s abuse or discipline any of the students and employees or staff members that not only created an environment where such abuse was permitted to occur but also who conspired to cover-up the abuse that occurred while under their supervision. Defendant’s knowing acquiescence and silence with respect to the known, or reasonably knowable, activities its agents and/or employees who concealed information from law enforcement and conspired with school administrators to cover-up Plaintiff’s sexual abuse and subsequent harassment, constituted a course of conduct through which acts of sexual violence and mental torment and the violation of the sanctity of children were condoned, approved, and effectively authorized.

205. Through its failure to timely reprimand and sanction the acts referenced above, and for all of the other reasons set forth herein including, without limitation, its failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such reprehensible acts, Defendant LC ratified said actions and, accordingly, is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, including Weber.

206. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to adequately and properly:

a. Employ processes that screen out and/or prevent the hiring of incompetent employees such as Weber;
b. supervise its agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members, including Weber, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. train its agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members, including Weber, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
d. employ policies that screen out and/or prevent the retention of employees who condone and cover-up sexual abuse;
e. investigate employees’ background and/or information it knew or should have known during the course of their employment, including that they condone and cover-up sexual abuse.

207. The negligent, reckless, intentional, outrageous, deliberately and recklessly indifferent and unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth above and herein, consisted of inter alia:
a. failing to report allegations of sexual abuse pursuant to 63 Pa.C.S. § 6311, et seq.
b. failing to open an investigative file on an allegation of child sexual abuse;
c. failing to generate any written reports on an allegation of child sexual abuse at or around the time the allegation was made;
d. failing to contact and/or coordinate with outside law enforcement agencies regarding an allegation of child sexual abuse;
e. failing to inform any prosecuting authority of an allegation of child sexual abuse;
f. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which Weber violated or engaged in conduct, in concert with others, that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301), constituting negligence per se;
g. failing to properly and adequately supervise and discipline its employees to prevent the above described unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct;
h. failing to adopt, enforce, and/or follow adequate policies and procedures for the protection and reasonable supervision of agents and/or employees, including Weber, and, in the alternative, failing to implement and comply with such procedures which had been adopted;
i. creating an environment that facilitated dereliction of duties as described above and throughout this Complaint;
j. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to protect minors from unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct on the part of Defendant’s agents and/or employees;
k. violation of duties imposed by Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 302B, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324A, 343, 344 and 371 and Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 as adopted in Pennsylvania;
l. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm posed by Weber after Defendants knew or should have known of such risk;
m. failing to provide Plaintiff with any assistance in coping with the injuries sustained;
n. ratifying B.M’s conduct;
o. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to communicate with victims of crime and/or utilize victim assistance programs or agencies to do so;
p. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm that Plaintiff may suffer as a result of further contact with B.M.;
q. failing to adopt/implement and/or enforce policies and procedures for the reporting to law enforcement, Office of Children and Youth, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and/or other authorities of harmful acts to children;
r. failing to report B.M.’s harmful acts to authorities both within LC and/or other authorities, including but not limited to the MBPD;
s. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment;
t. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding the recognition of criminal offenses, the retention and/or spoliation of evidence, interviewing witnesses, contacting and cooperating with victims of crime, contacting and cooperating with outside law enforcement agencies when necessary, and other functions essential to law enforcement and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students;
u. violating the requirements of Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law, 23 § 6311(a) and (b), and/or the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. §§ 2070.1 et seq. constituting negligence per se;
v. ignoring, concealing, or otherwise mitigating the seriousness of the known danger that B.M. posed;
w. failing to investigate the sexual abuse that was committed by B.M. on Plaintiff;
x. failing to conduct an unbiased and non-discriminatory investigation of Plaintiff’s abuse;
y. failing to afford Plaintiff due process and equal protection under the law in the scope of said investigation;
z. violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

aa. failing to take any law enforcement action against B.M. knowing that he sexually abused a student and disseminated video depictions of that abuse on social media;
bb. failing to adequately and properly train its employees regarding sexual abuse of minors; and
cc. negligently managing and/or operating its county detectives, including Weber.

208. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was harmed as a result and has sustained physical and emotional injuries, embarrassment, mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures.

209. Plaintiff has been and will likely, into the future, be caused to incur medical expenses and Plaintiff may likely incur a loss of earning capacity in the future.

210. Defendants knew or should have known about the severe risk of their failure to take any appropriate precautions outlined above and acted with a reckless disregard for such risk for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages pursuant to the requirements of Pennsylvania law.

211. Defendants’ actions and failures as described herein are outrageous and were done recklessly with a conscious disregard of the risk of harm to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants LC, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VII – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, Plaintiff v. All Defendants” in this series, is forthcoming.

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

177. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

178. At all relevant times, Defendants owed a duty to maintain a safe educational, athletic, and school environment for the students at WAHS, specifically Plaintiff.

179. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to protect and safeguard Plaintiff from hurt, harm, and danger while he was under their supervision.

180. At all relevant times, Defendants occupied a position of in loco parentis, and was under a duty to protect Plaintiff, and to provide him with safety and supervision akin to that which would have been provided by his own parents.

181. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to ensure that its employees were properly supervising students in their custody and care to protect them from the exact type of sexual abuse to which Plaintiff was subject.

182. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to provide for Plaintiff’s basic human needs, including the safety of his person and his educational environment.

183. By accepting custody of the minor Plaintiff, Defendants established an in loco parentis relationship with Plaintiff and in so doing, owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury.

184. At all relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known that their agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members were not qualified to supervise minor students in an environment where a lack of supervision created a risk of foreseeable harm to said minor students, including Plaintiff.

185. Defendants knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice of the conduct of their agents, employees, and/or staff members who failed to protect the safety of children in their school, including Plaintiff. Yet Defendants failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent acts of unlawful sexual abuse and to prevent or avoid placement of Plaintiff in functions or environments in which he would be endangered and abused.

186. Furthermore, at no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor its staff and students to ensure that children, including Plaintiff, were not abused.

187. Moreover, as set forth above, the incidents of abuse occurring when Plaintiff was in the care and custody of Defendants were purposefully shielded from the appropriate authorities. For years, Defendants failed to do anything to properly investigate Plaintiff’s abuse or discipline any of the students and employees or staff members that not only created an environment where
such abuse was permitted to occur but also who failed to properly investigate reports of Plaintiff’s abuse which occurred while under their supervision. Defendants’ knowing acquiescence and silence with respect to the known, or reasonably knowable, activities its students during an out-of-state athletic trip and at their school thereafter constituted a course of conduct through which acts of sexual violence, hazing, mental torment, bullying, harassment and the violation of the sanctity of children were condoned, approved, and effectively authorized.

188. Through its failure to timely reprimand and sanction the acts referenced above, and for all of the other reasons set forth herein including, without limitation, its failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such reprehensible acts, Defendants ratified said actions and, accordingly, is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, including Dr. Brandon
Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, and John Does 1-20.

189. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to adequately and properly:
a. Employ processes that screen out and/or prevent the hiring of incompetent employees such as Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20.
b. supervise its agents, employees, servants, staff members, administrators, teachers, coaches, and/or students, including B.M., Plaintiff, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. train its agents, employees, servants, staff members, administrators, teachers, coaches, and/or students, including B.M., Plaintiff, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
d. employ policies that screen out and/or prevent the retention of employees who condone and cover-up sexual abuse;
e. investigate employees’ background and/or information it knew or should have known during the course of their employment, including that they condone and cover-up sexual abuse.

190. The negligent, reckless, intentional, outrageous, deliberately and recklessly indifferent and unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth above and herein, consisted of inter alia:
a. permitting B.M. to sexually abuse a minor student;
b. permitting B.M. to exercise authority, care, supervision, guidance, and/or control over Plaintiff at the time he sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. permitting B.M. to engage in illegal sexual conduct with another student within the course and scope of a school-related function while both B.M. and Plaintiff were in the care and custody of Defendants;
d. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which B.M. violated or engaged in conduct that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Institutional Sexual Assault (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3124.2(a.2)(1), and /or Indecent Assault (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3126), and/or Indecent Exposure (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3127), and/or Sexual Extortion (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3133), and/or Sexual Abuse of Children (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6312), and/or Transmission of Sexually Explicit Images by a Minor (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6321), constituting negligence per se;
e. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which the Individual Defendants violated or engaged in conduct, in concert with others, that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301), constituting negligence per se;
f. failing to properly and adequately supervise and discipline its employees and/or agents to prevent the sexual abuse that occurred to Plaintiff;
g. failing to adopt, enforce, and/or follow adequate policies and procedures for the protection and reasonable supervision of children who attend Defendants’ school, including Plaintiff, and, in the alternative, failing to implement and comply with such procedures which had been adopted;
h. failing to implement, enforce, and/or follow adequate protective and supervisory measures for the protection of students at Defendants’ school, including Plaintiff;
i. creating an environment that facilitated sexual abuse of students, including Plaintiff;
j. creating an environment that facilitated the bullying and harassment of students, including Plaintiff;
k. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to protect minors against harmful influence and contact by other students, including B.M.;
l. violation of duties imposed by Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 302B, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324A, 343, 344 and 371 and Restatement (Second) of Agency §213 as adopted in Pennsylvania;
m. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm posed by B.M. after Defendants knew or should have known of such risk;
n. failing to provide Plaintiff with any assistance in coping with the injuries sustained;
o. ratifying B.M.’s conduct;
p. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm that Plaintiff may suffer as a result of further contact with B.M.;
q. failing to warn or otherwise make reasonably safe the property which Defendants controlled, leading to the harm of Plaintiff;
r. failing to adopt/implement and/or enforce policies and procedures for the reporting to law enforcement, Office of Children and Youth, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, authorities within Defendants’ school, and/or other authorities of harmful acts to children;
s. failing to report B.M.’s harmful acts to authorities within Defendants’ school and/or other authorities, including but not limited to the MBPD;
t. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment;
u. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students;
v. violating the requirements of Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law, 23 § 6311(a) and (b), and/or the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. §§ 2070.1 et seq. constituting negligence per se;
w. ignoring, concealing, or otherwise mitigating the seriousness of the known danger that B.M. posed;
x. failing to prevent the sexual abuse that was committed by B.M. on Plaintiff;
y. allowing B.M. to remain at school after knowing that he sexually abused a student and disseminated video depictions of that abuse on social media;
z. failing to properly supervise and/or discipline its employees who created an environment in which B.M.’s abuse of Plaintiff was permitted to take place;
aa. failing to adequately and properly train its employees regarding sexual abuse of students; and
bb. negligently managing and/or operating Defendants’ school.

191. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was subjected to sexual abuse in an environment Defendants knew or reasonably should have known such abuse was likely to occur.

192. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, video depicting Plaintiff’s sexual abuse was disseminated, which caused Plaintiff to be subjected to ridicule, bullying, and harassment at Defendants’ school.

193. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, the harassment of Plaintiff became ongoing and continued, unabated, for months, resulting in him leaving the school district.

194. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was harmed as a result and has sustained physical and emotional injuries, embarrassment, mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures.

195. Plaintiff has been and will likely, into the future, be caused to incur medical expenses and Plaintiff may likely incur a loss of earning capacity in the future.

196. Defendants knew or should have known about the severe risk of their failure to take any appropriate precautions outlined above and acted with a reckless disregard for such risk for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages pursuant to the requirements of Pennsylvania law.

197. Defendants’ actions and failures as described herein are outrageous and were done recklessly with a conscious disregard of the risk of harm to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VI – NEGLIGENCE, Plaintiff v. LC, Weber, and John Does 1-2” in this series, is forthcoming.

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

171. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

172. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 (the “Individual Defendants”) engaged in unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct which not only facilitated the sexual abuse of Plaintiff, but also engaged in such conduct to cover-up the abuse of Plaintiff in violation of Pennsylvania State law. Said conduct was undertaken while the Individual Defendants were employees and/or agents of Defendants WASD (Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, John Does 1-20) and LC (Weber), while in the course and scope of employment with Defendants WASD and LC, and/or was ratified by Defendants WASD and LC.

173. Prior to or during the time that the Individual Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged above, Defendants WASD and LC knew, had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice of the unpermitted, harmful, unlawful, and negligent conduct of the Individual Defendants. Defendants WASD and LC failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of criminal sexual misconduct, hazing, harassment, bullying, and the unlawful suppression of information related to such instances in the future by the Individual Defendants. Furthermore, at no time during the period of time alleged did Defendants WASD or LC have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor the students in their care on out-of-state athletic trips to ensure that criminal sexual misconduct did not occur; nor did Defendants WASD or LC have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor their employees, representatives, or agents to ensure that they were not suppressing information related to student criminal sexual misconduct and/or obstructing investigation into same.

174. Defendants’ WASD and LC knowing acquiescence and silence with respect to the known, or reasonably knowable, negligence acts and omissions of the Individual Defendants constituted a course of conduct through which acts of sexual abuse and obstruction of justice were condoned, approved, and effectively authorized.

175. Through their failure to timely reprimand and sanction the acts referenced herein, and for all of the other reasons set forth in this Complaint including, without limitation, their failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such reprehensible acts, Defendants WASD and LC ratified said actions and, accordingly, are vicariously liable for the actions of its agents, employees, volunteers, staff members, administrators, teachers, coaches, and representatives, including the Individual Defendants.

176. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD and LC in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT V, NEGLIGENCE, Plaintiff v. WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20” in this series, is forthcoming.

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)