COLUMBIA, S.C. (Legal Newsline) - An unhappy father will get his chance to sue a South Carolina school district after his son was bullied - by a teacher.
The state Supreme Court on Jan. 23 reversed lower courts that tossed claims brought on behalf of K.S., who was allegedly tormented while a first-grader by a teacher described by an administrator as "no-nonsense."
But K.S.'s dad viewed her intimidation tactics as nonsense. She allegedly made students cry, once grabbed K.S. by the arm and created a "no crying club" to isolate and humiliate K.S. in the first month of school in 2011.
The dad sued the Richland County School District for negligent supervision. He says the actions of the teacher changed his son, who has since been diagnosed with persistent depressive disorder and anxiety.
Lower courts ruled for the district because K.S. suffered no physical injuries, but the state Supreme Court says state law has long allowed a negligence plaintiff to recover emotional damages when they have also suffered physical harm.
"The physical harm requirement still forces the plaintiff to prove proximate cause, which includes proving the emotional harm was a foreseeable consequence of the harm," Justice D. Garrison Hill wrote.
"And we have dispensed with the physical harm rule altogether in cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We conclude the teacher's forceful grabbing of K.S. by the arm to the point of producing physical pain was enough evidence to allow the jury to infer it caused sufficient physical harm to support a verdict for negligence."
K.S.'s dad will need to prove the school district was grossly negligent in its supervision of the teacher. It is alleged she:
-Humiliated a classmate in the media center, causing them to sob, in an incident that was reported to the principal;
-Belittled K.S. a few weeks later, causing him to cry in front of the entire class (the principal was again notified); and
-After K.S. had dropped his tray in the cafeteria and began to cry, scolded K.S. for returning with a corn dog.
A cafeteria worker said the teacher treated K.S. "very harshly" because he did not return with a tray. This caused him to continue crying.
The teacher grabbed him "very forcefully by the arm" and told him "I will give you something to cry for." She made him eat at a table by himself, and K.S. testified she clawed him with her fingernails when she grabbed him.
That incident was also reported to the principal, who moved K.S. to another classroom. An investigation confirmed all accusations against the teacher and revealed more, including attempts to take from K.S. encouraging notes his father had written for him.
The "no crying club" was also discovered. It excluded K.S. The teacher was placed on leave and resigned a month after the cafeteria incident.
The plaintiffs' case, now reinstated, will be bolstered by evidence previously struck by the trial court. They will deploy Dr. Alan McEvoy to testify on teacher-on-student bullying and about how the district's response was deficient.
McEvoy will tell a jury that the district's policy was inadequate and that staff was untrained on how to implement it.
"Dr. McEvoy's testimony would have given the jury new and crucial insight into how the district's policies allowed K.S. to be victimized," Justice Hill wrote.