You are hereby summoned and required to answer the Complaint in this action, a copy of

Transcription

1 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF PICKENS ) ) C.A. No. Jeff Hawkins and Tamra Hawkins, ) individually and as guardians for their ) minor child, S.H. ) ) SUMMONS Plaintiffs, ) ) County of Pickens, South Carolina, Pickens ) County Sheriff s Office, Duke Energy ) Carolinas, LLC, John Does. ) ) Defendants. ) TO: THE DEFENDANTS NAMED ABOVE: You are hereby summoned and required to answer the Complaint in this action, a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer upon the subscribers at their office at White, Davis & White Law Firm, P.A., Anderson, South Carolina, 29621, within thirty (30) days after the service hereof, exclusive of the date of such service. If you fail to answer the Complaint within that time aforesaid, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, November 20, 2017 /s/kyle J. White Druanne D. White (S.C. Bar No. 5991) Kyle J. White, (S.C. Bar No ) White, Davis, and White Law Firm 209 E. Calhoun St. Anderson, SC (864) druanne@wdwlawfirm.com kyle@wdwlawfirm.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

2 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF PICKENS ) ) C.A. No. Jeff Hawkins and Tamra Hawkins, ) individually and as guardians for their ) minor child, S.H. ) ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, ) (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) ) County of Pickens, South Carolina, Pickens ) County Sheriff s Office, Duke Energy ) Carolinas, LLC, John Does. ) ) Defendants. ) The Plaintiffs, complaining of the Defendants would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: 1. Plaintiffs Jeff Hawkins and Tamra Hawkins are husband and wife. They bring this action against the Defendants individually and as guardians for S.H., their minor child. The Plaintiffs have, at all relevant times, been residents of the County of Pickens, South Carolina. 2. Defendants County of Pickens, SC ( Pickens County ) and Pickens County Sheriff s Office ( Pickens County SO ) are political subdivisions of the State of South Carolina as defined in et seq. of the Code of Laws of South Carolina. At all times herein mentioned, Pickens County and Pickens County SO acted and carried on their business by and through their agents, servants, and/or employees at various locations within the County of Pickens, South Carolina. Additionally, these agents, servants, and/or employees were operating within the scope of their officially assigned and/or compensated duties. 3. Defendant Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ( Duke Energy ) is a limited liability 2

3 company organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina. Duke Energy regularly does business in South Carolina through its agents, employees, and officers. The common stock of Duke Energy s parent company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol DUK. 4. Defendant John Does are employees of Pickens County and Pickens County SO, and they will be sued in their individual and official capacities. At all relevant times, Defendant John Does were acting in the course and scope of their employment, and under the color of state law. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action is brought pursuant to the laws of the jurisdictional laws of the State of South Carolina, as well as South Carolina Code et seq., more commonly known as the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, and 42 U.S.C Jurisdiction is founded upon the above statutory provisions. 6. Venue is proper in Pickens County because the substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place in Pickens County. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. Pickens County operates, manages, and otherwise controls recreation facilities and parks for its citizens, including the 155 acre Mile Creek Park ( Mile Creek Park ) located at 757 Keowee Baptist Church Road, Six Mile, South Carolina Pickens County is responsible for providing employees to operate the park. 8. Duke Energy owns, controls, and participates in the maintenance of Mile Creek Park, and leases Mile Creek Park to Pickens County. Duke Energy also is responsible for the condition of Mile Creek Park, including whether it is safe for those present at the park, and has the authority and ability to carry out needed improvements, including those pertaining to safety and 3

4 security. Projects recently completed improvements at Mile Creek Park, including adding courtesy docks to existing boat ramps, installing handicap accessible vault toilets, adding and enhancing picnic sites, improving handicap accessibility, upgrading lighting, and expanding parking. Duke Energy has the power to close Mile Creek park if safety improvements need to be carried out, and it has the power to control which individuals are allowed to enter the park. 9. Pickens County markets that: Mile Creek Park is the perfect family vacation site and a fisherman s paradise with the area s best access to beautiful Lake Keowee. With its scenic natural setting, modern facilities and great amenities for the whole family, Mile Creek Park is an outdoor jewel. Wash away your worries with a little time under the sun. 10. Pickens County boasts that there are plenty of places to play at Mile Creek Park, with a sandy beach, two playgrounds, basketball and volleyball courts. 11. Pickens County further advertises that Mile Creek Park offers paved boat ramps and parking for cars with trailers, offering boaters convenient access to scenic Lake Keowee for water skiing, sailing and some of the best fishing to be found anywhere. Restrooms are located in the landing area. There is a 150-foot dock for loading and unloading boats. More than seven miles of shoreline and rugged terrain greet the boater and bank fisherman. Three public shelters for group outings each complete with water lights and large grills. Numerous picnic sites, each with table and grill, throughout the park area. A choice of 4 play areas, 2 with playground equipment, 1 basketball, and volleyball court. A park store that features limited grocery and camping items. 12. Pickens County actively markets to families with minor children, and encourages them to come to Mile Creek Park for recreational purposes. The website for Mile Creek Park even features a minor child fishing on the homepage. 4

5 13. For each family that does attend Mile Creek Park, Pickens County earns $5.00 per car for parking, between $ per night for camping, and between $55.00 per day for picnic shelter rentals. 14. Pickens County s marketing to young families includes encouragement to take advantage of the remote areas of the park, meaning that families and minor children will foreseeably end up in isolated areas of the park. 15. To make families feel safe in the remote areas, Pickens County boasts that it offers 24 hour security at the park. Upon information and belief, this is false, and no 24 hour security is actually provided at the park. 16. Pickens County and Duke Energy have a duty to maintain the Mile Creek Park premises such that it is safe for those who enter the park, including minors, and to provide a safe environment with adequate security. 17. Unbeknownst to the general public to whom the Defendants market, Pickens County made the decision to reduce costs at Mile Creek Park by partnering with the Pickens County Sheriff s Office to import inmates from the detention center to perform labor at Mile Creek Park. Duke Energy had actual knowledge that this was taking place on at the park, and did nothing to prevent it, despite the power to do so. On at least one occasion, Duke Energy employees witnessed employees from the County and inmates cutting trees on the property, and instructed them to stop cutting the trees. This demonstrates Duke Energy s knowledge and acceptance of the use of inmate labor, as well as Duke Energy s control over the County employees and inmates. Duke Energy also benefitted from the arrangement by shifting maintenance responsibility to cheaper inmate labor as opposed to paying normal wages for maintenance employees. For these reasons and others, the actions and inactions of the Defendants described herein were motivated by unreasonable financial gain. 5

6 18. In addition to luring minors to the park with marketing materials, in another effort to reduce payroll costs, Pickens County employed minors to work at Mile Creek Park. 19. With the knowledge that minors would be working at Mile Creek Park, and attending Mile Creek Park for recreation purposes with their families, the Defendants allowed inmates to work unsupervised, near and around the minor children employed at and attending Mile Creek Park. 20. The Defendants failure to supervise the cheaper inmate labor at Mile Creek Park allowed the inmates to use drugs and alcohol at Mile Creek Park and to be alone with minors such that the inmates could coerce and force the minors into the use of drugs and sexual acts. Upon information and belief, the top-ranking County employee at the park had actual knowledge that inmates were using drugs at the park, and it was understood that the inmates could use drugs at the park as long as they completed their work. 21. The Defendants specifically permitted the inmates to do drugs at the park and to simultaneously work alongside S.H., who was on site to perform labor. The Plaintiffs assumed that the Defendants were maintaining a safe environment for S.H. while he was working there, and the Plaintiffs were never informed that inmate labor would be used at Mile Creek Park. 22. During the lengthy periods of time that S.H. was alone with the inmates without any supervision by the Defendants, S.H. was forced and coerced by the inmates into using drugs, including marijuana, methamphetamines, and other drugs, and was forced and coerced into performed nonconsensual sex acts with the inmates. The Defendants allowed this to occur due to the use of unsupervised inmate labor, and the Defendants did nothing to intervene to prevent the victimization of S.H. by the inmates, despite the duty and ability to do so. 23. The inmates were able to coerce S.H. into meeting up with them after hours, 6

7 and at least one of the inmates coaxed S.H. to leave his home in the middle of the night to use drugs and engage in sex acts. 24. S.H. left the park at the request of his parents once his parents discovered the inmate labor arrangement. Shortly thereafter, one of the inmates was hired by the County to work at the park following his release from the detention center, despite the County s knowledge that the inmate had used drugs at the park while working as an inmate at the park. On at least two occasions, during which S.H. was no longer an employee and the inmate was an employee in the course and scope of his duties, the inmate picked up S.H. from his home after midnight, and forced S.H. to use drugs and sexually abused him. 25. The Plaintiffs have experienced significant physical and/or psychological trauma and are receiving ongoing treatment. Plaintiffs Jeff and Tamra Hawkins have incurred and will continue to incur out of pocket expenses for the benefit of S.H., including but not limited to medical bills and lost wages, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants acts and omissions. 26. Additionally, Jeff Hawkins discovered the victimization of S.H. when he found S.H. with one of the inmates using drugs on his property after the inmate had coerced S.H. to sneak out of the house. Accordingly, Jeff Hawkins also makes a claim as a bystander. FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Gross Negligence, Negligence per se Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Maintenance as to Duke Energy, Pickens County and Pickens County SO) 27. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are responsible for the conduct alleged herein resulting in harm to the Plaintiff, as well as the conduct of their agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment, as set forth above; said conduct being negligent, grossly negligent, willful and reckless, including, among others, 7

8 without limit: a. Misrepresenting the level of safety and security systems and measures in place at the park; b. Luring minors to the park with marketing materials, with the knowledge that unsupervised inmates would be working with and near them; c. Supplying inmate labor at Mile Creek Park, despite the knowledge that minors would be present in close proximity to the inmates; d. Allowing inmates to work around minors unsupervised at Mile Creek Park; e. The failure to hire adequate and proper personnel at Mile Creek Park; f. The failure to establish policy or practice that would lead to the discovery of misconduct by their employees and inmates on premises and prevent the same from occurring; g. The failure to establish policy or practice that would lead to the discovery of misconduct their employees and inmate labor and prevent the same from occurring; h. The failure to make periodic and proper investigations and take remedial action as might be necessary to prevent inappropriate actions and similar activities from occurring at the location where the Plaintiffs were harmed; i. The failure to perform a proper and adequate background check prior to employing the involved employees and inmate labor; j. In employing and continuing to employ the above-referenced employees and inmates when they knew or should have known their propensity to improperly handle their duties; k. The failure to properly supervise their employees and the inmates allowed to work at Mile Creek Park; l. The failure to properly determine and investigate complaints about and activities of the above-referenced individuals; m. The failure to implement adequate security or safety measures designed to prevent or substantially reduce the likelihood that the Plaintiffs or others similarly situated would be subjected to the acts of misconduct by employees and inmates; n. The failure to provide necessary protection to the Plaintiffs despite actual 8

9 knowledge of specific risk of harm to them posed by the above described conduct and individuals; o. The failure to protect the Plaintiffs from known risks of harm; p. The failure to use even slight care and caution in safekeeping the Plaintiffs with whom they had a fiduciary duty; q. The failure to protect the Plaintiffs from the above-referenced individuals, including the inmates who victimized him; r. In creating an environment which subjected the Plaintiffs to harassment, physical and mental harm; s. In creating an environment in which the above-referenced employees and/or inmates were permitted to prey on the vulnerability of those under their control; t. The failure to develop and disseminate a clear policy advising all employees that the above-referenced misconduct is a prohibited employment practice and one that would not be tolerated in a place of work; u. The failure to enforce policies prohibiting mistreatment of minors; v. The failure to have and/or implement special policies regarding the treatment of minors at Mile Creek Park; w. The failure to train supervisors or other employees to recognize, investigate and properly remedy dangerous misconduct by employees and inmates; x. The failure to properly train, monitor and supervise employees and inmates, to include and not be limited to the employees of defendants who disregarded the specific and known risk of harm described above; y. The failure to maintain adequate security systems; z. The failure to maintain the Defendants premises in a safe fashion; aa. The failure to protect the Plaintiffs from risk of harm after knowing of the assault against Plaintiffs thereby placing them in fear of further harm; and bb. For creating an unreasonably unsafe environment that allowed and caused the above-referenced victimization of S.H. to occur. 28. The Defendants had a duty to the Plaintiff and to the community as set forth above, and breached those duties in the ways listed above. The Plaintiff seeks damages against 9

10 the Defendants for actual and consequential damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. 29. As the above-described incidents involve numerous separate acts and/or omissions pertaining to the failure to train, supervise, and/or terminate the employment of numerous individuals who committed the acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs have alleged multiple occurrences pursuant to Chastain v. Anmed Health Found., 388 S.C. 170 (2010) and Boiter v. SCDOT, 393 S.C. 123 (2011) for the purpose of calculating the applicable damages caps, if any applicable to the governmental defendants. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C Violation of Plaintiff s Civil Rights as to Defendant Pickens County) 30. At all times material hereto, Pickens County was responsible for the Pickens County SO, as well as the Pickens County SO s agents and employees, including hiring, supervising, overseeing, training and establishing policies, customs, and procedures to conform their conduct to the applicable state and federal laws. 31. The Sheriff of Pickens County SO was the final policy maker for Pickens County regarding law enforcement policies and acts, including whether inmates at the detention center would be supplied to perform labor at a particular location. The Sheriff made the policy decision to supply inmates to Mile Creek Park to perform labor, and not to supervise them while they were working, despite the knowledge that the inmates would be working with and in close proximity to minors. This violated the Plaintiffs civil rights. 32. The final policymaker for Pickens County for decisions pertaining to employment matters at Mile Creek Park made the policy decision to allow unsupervised inmate labor to be used at Mile Creek Park, and to allow the inmates to work near and with minors at the park. This was a moving force behind the violation of the Plaintiff s civil rights. 33. Pickens County s policies, procedures, customs, and practices of condoning 10

11 unlawful and improper acts by their employees and Pickens County SO employees, of failing to identify, train, discipline, and otherwise properly supervise employees and inmates, and specifically of condoning and failing to appropriately respond, through discipline, training, supervision, or otherwise, to the prior misconduct of employees and inmates were a moving force behind the violations of the Plaintiff s civil rights. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of the S.H. s civil rights, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including mental anguish, bodily injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of medical care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and various other categories of economic and noneconomic damages. The Plaintiffs also claim reimbursement of attorney s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, as well as punitive damages. 35. This Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity under the current state of the law, and even if it was entitled to assert such a defense under the current state of law, qualified immunity is unlawful and should no longer be recognized as a defense to claims asserted under 42 U.S.C.A See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S. 655 (U.S. 2017) (Thomas, J., concurring) ( In an appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence. ) (citing Baude, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, 106 Cal. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2018) (manuscript, at 7-17), online at (as last visited June 15, 2017)). WHEREFORE, having fully set forth the grounds in her Complaint, Plaintiffs ask the Court to award the following, which were proximately caused by acts and/or omissions outlined above: 1. Compensatory and punitive damages in an appropriate amount against 11

12 November 20, 2017 the Defendants, jointly and severally; 2. Statutory damages; 3. Attorney s fees and costs; 4. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 5. Respectfully submitted, The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. /s/ Kyle J. White Kyle J. White (SC Bar No ) /s/kyle J. White Druanne D. White (S.C. Bar No. 5991) Kyle J. White, (S.C. Bar No ) White, Davis, and White Law Firm 209 E. Calhoun St. Anderson, SC (864) druanne@wdwlawfirm.com kyle@wdwlawfirm.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 12