SC Supreme Court Weighs Charleston Church Sex Abuse Case from the 1970s

Historic Charitable Immunity Law Could Shield Diocese from Liability

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments on December 10, 2024, in a sexual abuse case dating back to the early 1970s at Charleston’s former Sacred Heart Catholic School. The case centers on whether an outdated charitable immunity law protects the Catholic Diocese of Charleston from liability. Filed in 2018, the lawsuit involves allegations of abuse against a pre-teen student between 1969 and 1971, with both accused teachers now deceased. The court’s decision will determine if the case can proceed to a jury trial.

5 Key Points

• The case challenges Charleston Diocese’s immunity under defunct charitable protection law.
• Alleged abuse occurred at Sacred Heart Catholic School between 1969 and 1971.
• Two lower courts previously ruled in favor of the Diocese’s immunity claim.
• The plaintiff’s attorney argues that the Diocese bears direct responsibility beyond teacher actions.
• The court ruling will only determine if the case proceeds to a jury trial.

Diocese Claims 1970s Law Blocks Sexual Abuse Accountability

The Catholic Diocese of Charleston argued before South Carolina’s Supreme Court on December 10 that a historical, charitable immunity law absolves them of liability in the sexual abuse case. This law, which the state’s Supreme Court struck down in 1981, previously granted charitable organizations blanket protection from most lawsuits. The Diocese’s legal team emphasized that since the alleged abuse occurred between 1969 and 1971, the now-defunct protection still applies. Diocese attorneys further contend the accused teachers’ actions fell outside their official duties as educators, creating an additional barrier to church liability.

Plaintiff’s Attorney Challenges Church’s Direct Role

Representing the unnamed former Sacred Heart Catholic School student, John Richardson presented evidence suggesting the Diocese’s guilt extends beyond the teachers’ actions. “The allegations here are that the diocese is liable for what the diocese has done,” Richardson argued before the court. Richardson’s legal strategy focuses on the church’s institutional response rather than individual perpetrators, both of whom are deceased. The case, filed in 2018, emerged after previous class action settlements against the Diocese spanning the 2000s and 2010s revealed additional victims.

Get a free legal case review today

Did you develop any of the following injuries after being exposed to Fire Fighting Foam (AFFF)? * Choose one Ulcerative Colitis Kidney Cancer Pancreatic Cancer Testicular Cancer Prostate Cancer Bladder Cancer Thyroid Disease Liver Cancer Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma None of the above Were you exposed to Fire Fighting Foam (AFFF)? *

YesNo

Which medication(s) did you take during your pregnancy? * Choose one Tylenol Acetaminophen Alka-Seltzer Coricidin Dayquil Excedrin FluTherapy Midol Mucinex Nyquil Panadol Robitussin Sinex Sudafed Theraflu Other Medication(s) Was your child diagnosed with Autism, ADHD or another condition? * Choose one Autism/Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Asperger’s Syndrome Kanner’s Syndrome Childhood Disintegrative Disorder Pervasive Developmental Disorder Other Medical Condition How old was your child at the time of diagnosis? *

Under 18 years old18+ years old

Did the accident occur within the last 2 years? *

YesNo

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *

ZIP Code *

Phone Number *

What is your case type? * Choose one -------------------- Asbestos Baby Formula Camp Lejeune Clergy Abuse CPAP Elmiron Exactech Firefighting Foam FTX Exchange Hair Relaxer Hernia Mesh Paraquat PFAS Roundup Sex Abuse Social Media Talcum Powder Tepezza Tylenol -------------------- Birth Injury Car Accident FELA Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accident Slip and Fall Trucking Accident Uber & Lyft Rideshare Workplace Injury Weight Loss Wrongful Death -------------------- Something Else

Human Verification *

I understand and agree that (a) submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship, (b) I am not already represented by an attorney for this matter, (c) the information I submit will be shared with a law firm, and (d) I have read and accepted the terms and conditions of the Privacy Policy, Terms of Service and Legal Disclaimer. Further, I consent to being contacted by a law firm or its agent after submitting this request.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Two Court Decisions Already Favor Diocese’s Defense

The Diocese’s immunity claim has prevailed in lower courts. Circuit Judge Bentley Price delivered a 2020 summary judgment supporting the church’s position, explicitly citing the charitable immunity doctrine. This ruling gained further support when Chief Judge H. Bruce Williams authored an appeals court decision last summer. Williams’ opinion emphasized both the church’s charitable designation during the alleged abuse period and the legal precedent supporting complete immunity at that time.

Eight Distinct Claims Target Diocese’s Actions

The plaintiff’s legal team filed eight specific charges against the Diocese: breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, negligent retention, negligent supervision, breach of contract, and breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act. These allegations stem from the plaintiff’s attendance at Sacred Heart Catholic School between 1969 and 1971. The current Supreme Court hearing will determine whether these claims can proceed to a jury trial, a process that could extend months or years given South Carolina’s judicial backlog.