THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT V – NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff v. WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20″

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.