Sunteți pe pagina 1din 26

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS


)
COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
Brittany Todd; Kevin Todd; H.R.T., a ) Case No.____________________
minor, by and through her Parent and )
Natural Guardian Brittany Todd; )
H.E.T., a minor, by and through his )
Parent and Natural Guardian Brittany ) SUMMONS
Todd; S.E.T., a minor, by and through ) (Jury Trial Demanded)
her Parent and Natural Guardian )
Brittany Todd; S.J.T., a minor, by and )
through his Parent and Natural )
Guardian Brittany Todd; and A.K.T., a )
minor, by and through her Parent and )
Natural Guardian Brittany Todd, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
South Carolina Department of )
Corrections; South Carolina )
Department of Probation, Parole and )
Pardon Services; Spartanburg County )
Sheriff’s Department; Charleston )
County Sheriff’s Office; and Berkeley
County Sheriff’s Department,

Defendants.

TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE-NAMED:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, a

copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this

Complaint upon the subscriber, at the address shown below, within thirty (30) days after

service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service, and if you fail to answer the

Complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in

the Complaint.

1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
_s/Nekki Shutt________________
Nekki Shutt (SC Bar No. 8784)
Sarah J.M. Cox (S.C. Bar No. 108314)
BURNETTE SHUTT & McDANIEL, PA
912 Lady Street, Second Floor
PO Box 1929
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Telephone: (803) 904-7912
Fax: (803) 904-7910
NShutt@BurnetteShutt.Law
SCox@BurnetteShutt.Law

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS


Columbia, South Carolina

January 31, 2020

2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
)
COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
Brittany Todd; Kevin Todd; H.R.T., a ) Case No.____________________
minor, by and through her Parent and )
Natural Guardian Brittany Todd; )
H.E.T., a minor, by and through his )
Parent and Natural Guardian Brittany ) COMPLAINT
Todd; S.E.T., a minor, by and through ) (Jury Trial Demanded)
her Parent and Natural Guardian ) (Negligence, Gross Negligence, Loss of
Brittany Todd; S.J.T., a minor, by and ) Consortium, and SC Tort Claims Act)
through his Parent and Natural )
Guardian Brittany Todd; and A.K.T., a )
minor, by and through her Parent and )
Natural Guardian Brittany Todd, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
South Carolina Department of )
Corrections; South Carolina )
Department of Probation, Parole and )
Pardon Services; Spartanburg County )
Sheriff’s Department; Charleston )
County Sheriff’s Office; and Berkeley )
County Sheriff’s Department, )
)
Defendants. )

Plaintiffs Brittany Todd, Kevin Todd, H.R.T., a minor, H.E.T., a minor, and A.K.T.,

a minor (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) complaining against Defendants South Carolina

Department of Corrections, South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon

Services, Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Department, Charleston County Sheriff’s Office,

and Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”) would

respectfully show unto this Court as follows:

1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Between February 13 and February 14, 2018, Thomas Lawton Evans

(“Evans”), a convicted felon out on parole with a documented violent past and severe

drug addiction, broke into Plaintiffs’ home, brutally assaulted Plaintiffs Brittany Todd and

H.R.T. in front of Plaintiffs H.E.T. and A.K.T., and kidnapped Plaintiff H.R.T. Evans had

been released from a South Carolina prison only 13 days prior to this incident. Evans

spent the 13 days between February 1, 2018 and his capture in Alabama on February 14,

2018, under the influence of powerful illegal and legal drugs, including crack cocaine,

crystal methamphetamine, and alcohol. During these 13 days, while under the influence

of drugs and alcohol, Evans rampaged throughout South Carolina, Georgia, and

Alabama. In these 13 days, Evans committed at least four violent assaults, multiple

armed robberies, at least two burglaries, and manufactured methamphetamines. Evans

is now serving four consecutive life terms for his crimes. Defendants had multiple

opportunities to prevent or to stop Evans’s rampage before it reached Plaintiffs’ doorstep,

and Defendants negligently failed at every turn to perform their legal duties to protect

Plaintiffs and Evans’s other victims. Each allegation is more fully set forth herein.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Charleston County, South Carolina.

3. Defendants are a governmental agencies and/or political subdivisions of the

State of South Carolina as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-10, existing under the laws

of the State of South Carolina, and are such agencies subject to suit under the South

Carolina Tort Claims Act (“Tort Claims Act”), S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-50, et seq.

2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
4. Under the Tort Claims Act, a governmental entity is liable for its torts “in the

same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,

subject to the limitations contained herein.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-40.

5. Jurisdiction for any action brought under the Tort Claims Act is in the circuit

court and brought in the county in which the act or omission occurred.

6. This Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this matter.

FACTS

7. Defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections (hereinafter “SCDC”),

is a governmental agency of the State of South Carolina and has facilities located

throughout the state of South Carolina.

8. During the time period relevant to this Complaint, SCDC was acting by and

through its servants, agents, and/or employees acting within the scope of their officially

assigned and/or compensated duties.

9. Defendant South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon

Services (hereinafter “DPPP”) is a governmental agency of the State of South Carolina

and has facilities throughout the State of South Carolina.

10. During the time period relevant to this Complaint, DPPP was acting by and

through its servants, agents, and/or employees acting within the scope of their officially

assigned and/or compensated duties.

11. Defendant Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter “SCSO”) is a

governmental agency of the State of South Carolina and has facilities located in

Spartanburg County, South Carolina.

3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
12. During the time period relevant to this Complaint, SCSO was acting by and

through its servants, agents, and/or employees acting within the scope of their officially

assigned and/or compensated duties.

13. Defendant Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department (hereinafter “BCSD”) is a

governmental agency of the State of South Carolina and has facilities located in Berkeley

County, South Carolina.

14. During the time period relevant to this Complaint, BCSD was acting by and

through its servants, agents, and/or employees acting within the scope of their officially

assigned and/or compensated duties.

15. Defendant Charleston County Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter “CCSO”) is a

governmental agency of the State of South Carolina and has facilities located in

Charleston County, South Carolina.

16. During the time period relevant to this Complaint, CCSO was acting by and

through its servants, agents, and/or employees acting within the scope of their officially

assigned and/or compensated duties.

17. On March 17, 2010, Evans was convicted of burglary and armed robbery

while armed with a deadly weapon and was incarcerated by SCDC at Kershaw State

Penitentiary.

18. Upon information and belief, Evans requested to see a mental health

professional multiple times during his incarceration with SCDC to help him manage his

mental health symptoms and drug addiction.

19. Upon information and belief, Evans communicated to SCDC that he was

concerned that he would not be able to control his violent impulses and addictions upon

4
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
his release from incarceration with SCDC and did not believe that he should have been

allowed outside of prison.

20. Evans had multiple disciplinary infractions while incarcerated, including

infractions for possession of drugs while incarcerated, and an infraction for taking his

roommate hostage with a knife less than one month prior to his release.

21. SCDC did not provide Evans with appropriate mental health care or

addiction care while he was incarcerated with SCDC.

22. On February 1, 2018, Evans was released from prison and entered DPPP’s

Community Supervision Program, more commonly known as parole.

23. As a part of the terms of his parole, Evans was ordered not to use controlled

substances and not to consume alcoholic beverages to excess.

24. As a part of the terms of his parole, Evans was ordered to report to DPPP

in Spartanburg County within 24 hours of his release from custody with SCDC.

25. Upon information and belief, DPPP did not enter Evans into its public

database as being on parole.

26. Upon information and belief, Evans did not report to DPPP within 24 hours

of his release as required by the terms of his parole.

27. Even though Evans had not reported to DPPP, DPPP still did not enter

Evans into its public database as being on parole and did not take prompt steps to obtain

a warrant for Evans due to his violation of the terms of his parole.

28. Upon his release from SCDC’s custody, Evans moved in with childhood

friend Sharon “Nannette” Hayden (hereinafter “Hayden”).

5
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
29. Upon information and belief, Evans began engaging in heavy drug and

alcohol use as soon as he was released from prison.

30. On or about February 3, 2018, Evans stabbed Hayden and she fled into the

woods behind her home.

31. Evans then left Spartanburg County in Hayden’s vehicle on or about

February 3, 2018.

32. Upon information and belief, Hayden’s disappearance was reported to

SCSO, and SCSO knew or should have known that Evans was a person of interest in her

disappearance.

33. SCSO did not place the information about Hayden’s disappearance into the

National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) database or otherwise issue an All Points

Bulletin (“APB”) or a Be On the Lookout (“BOLO”) alert to law enforcement regarding

either Hayden or Evans.

34. SCSO did not notate Evans’s status as a person of interest in Hayden’s

disappearance.

35. Upon information and belief, SCSO did not promptly contact DPPP so that

Evans’s parole could be violated.

36. On February 4, 2018, a gas station clerk on James Island, South Carolina

called 911 to report Evans behaving suspiciously at the gas station, going back and forth

between his vehicle and the gas station and attempting to use credit cards which were

declined.

37. On February 4, 2018, CCSO deputies responded to this call and questioned

Evans, who was the suspicious person reported by the gas station clerk.

6
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
38. On February 4, 2018, CCSO did not contact DPPP or check the DPPP

public database to identify whether Evans was on parole.

39. Upon information and belief, CCSO did not promptly contact DPPP so that

Evans’s parole could be violated.

40. Upon information and belief, Evans was visibly highly intoxicated on

February 4, 2018, at the time he was questioned by CSCO, which was a violation of the

terms of his parole.

41. On February 4, 2018, When Evans was questioned by CCSO deputies, he

was found not to have a driver’s license, even though he was in possession of a vehicle

belonging to Hayden (then a missing person), and was attempting to use non-functioning

credit cards.

42. On February 4, 2018, CCSO deputies did not hold Evans for questioning

and CSCO released Evans after a brief interview with CCSO deputies.

43. Upon information and belief, if CCSO deputies had properly investigated

Evans on February 4, 2018, they would have determined that he was on parole, that he

was violating the terms of his parole by being intoxicated, that he had no valid drivers

license, and that he was a person of interest in Hayden’s disappearance.

44. Upon information and belief, CCSO deputies would have held Evans if they

had properly investigated him on February 4, 2018, and Evans would not have been able

to continue his crime spree and injure Plaintiffs.

45. Between February 5 and February 10, 2018, Evans reportedly spent his

time doing hard drugs, intoxicated, and sleeping in a shed belonging to a friend.

7
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
46. On February 11, 2018, a concerned person placed a 911 call in Berkeley

County, South Carolina, regarding a suspicious vehicle and a man (Evans) who was

walking a neighborhood with a gas can, asking for money.

47. Upon information and belief, on February 11, 2018, BCSD’s deputies were

dispatched on February 11, 2018 to the area and found Evans walking with a gas can.

48. Upon information and belief, on February 11, 2018, BCSD’s deputies asked

Evans what he was doing and ran his identification through their systems.

49. Upon information and belief, on February 11, 2018, Evans had been taking

crystal methamphetamine and drinking alcohol for several days in a row and had not slept

for an unknown number of days.

50. Upon information and belief, on arrival February 11, 2018, BCSD’s deputies

found that Evans’s license had been suspended, and that the vehicle he was using was

registered to Hayden.

51. Upon information and belief, on February 11, 2018, BCSD’s deputies called

Hayden and Hayden’s mother told BCSD’s deputies that Hayden was missing, and that

Evans was a person of interest in her disappearance.

52. Even though Evans had not slept and had been doing crystal

methamphetamine and drinking for days, was driving a vehicle belonging to a missing

woman when he was stopped by deputies, and even though Evans had a suspended

license, BCSD’s deputies did not detain Evans or investigate any further on February 11,

2018.

53. Upon information and belief, BCSD did not promptly contact DPPP so that

Evans’s parole could be violated.

8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
54. Two days later, on February 13, 2018, Evans entered Plaintiffs’ home and

violently assaulted Plaintiff Brittany Todd in front of her minor children, Plaintiffs H.R.T.,

H.E.T., and A.K.T.

55. On February 13, 2018, Evans assaulted Plaintiff Brittany Todd for

approximately an hour, beating her with his fists and slamming her head into the floor,

holding a knife to her throat, and sexually assaulting her.

56. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiffs H.R.T., H.E.T., and A.K.T. witnessed the

assault of their mother.

57. On February 13, 2018, after assaulting Plaintiff Brittany Todd, Evans fled

Plaintiffs’ home with minor child Plaintiff H.R.T., kidnapping her.

58. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiffs Brittany Todd, H.E.T., and A.K.T.

witnessed the kidnapping of Plaintiff H.R.T.

59. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff Brittany Todd was so incapacitated by her

assault at the hands of Evans that she was unable to call for help.

60. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff Brittany Todd was so incapacitated by her

assault at the hands of Evans that she was unable to or care for H.E.T. or A.K.T. in any

meaningful way.

61. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff Brittany Todd was unable to feed A.K.T. for

over six hours, was unable to change the diapers of either H.E.T. or A.K.T., and was

unable to comfort them in their distress.

62. After he fled Plaintiffs’ home on February 13, 2018, Evans transported

Plaintiff H.R.T. to Alabama in Hayden’s vehicle.

9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
63. On February 14, 2018, while Evans held Plaintiff H.R.T. hostage, he

violently assaulted her and caused her significant injury.

64. On February 14, 2018, Evans was found, and Plaintiff H.R.T. was rescued

by Alabama police.

65. After his capture on February 14, 2018, Evans admitted to his assaults on

Plaintiffs H.R.T. and Brittany Todd, and to kidnapping Plaintiff H.R.T.

66. On March 6, 2019, Evans pled guilty in federal court to kidnapping,

transportation of a minor with the intent to engage in sexual activity, and aggravated

sexual abuse in relation to the above events. Evans was sentenced to three consecutive

life terms in federal prison.

67. On October 3, 2019, Evans pled guilty in state court to attempted murder,

criminal sexual conduct, burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, and the possession of a

weapon during a violent crime. Evans was sentenced to an additional life term for these

charges.

68. As a result of Evan’s assault on her, Plaintiff Brittany Todd suffered

extensive and continuing injuries including an intracranial hemorrhage, cracked skull, eye

trauma, facial numbness, loss of sense of smell, memory loss, cognitive processing

problems, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

69. Plaintiff Brittany Todd also was forced to cease breastfeeding Plaintiff

A.K.T. due to her injuries and trauma, which negatively impacted A.K.T.

70. As a result of her kidnapping and Evan’s assault on her mother and her,

Plaintiff H.R.T. suffered extensive and continuing emotional and physical trauma.

10
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
71. As a result of witnessing Evan’s assault on Plaintiff Brittany Todd and

kidnapping of Plaintiff H.R.T., Plaintiff H.E.T. suffered severe emotional distress, hunger,

trauma, and negative behavioral changes.

72. As a result of witnessing Evan’s assault on Plaintiff Brittany Todd and

kidnapping of Plaintiff H.R.T., Plaintiff A.K.T. suffered severe emotional distress, hunger,

and the inability to continue breastfeeding, which negatively impacted her bonding with

her mother.

73. As a result of the assault and kidnapping, Plaintiff Brittany Todd was

deprived of the ability to care for her husband, Plaintiff Kevin Todd, to whom she has been

married for 12 years.

74. As a result of the assault and kidnapping, Plaintiff Brittany Todd was

deprived of the ability to care for her children, Plaintiffs S.E.T., S.J.T., H.E.T., H.R.T., and

A.K.T.

75. As a result of the assault and kidnapping, Plaintiff Brittany Todd has

incurred over $377,000.00 in medical bills to date.

76. As a result of the assault and kidnapping, Plaintiffs Brittany and Kevin Todd

have incurred over $7,000.00 in medical bills for H.R.T.’s treatment to date.

77. As a result of the assault and kidnapping, Plaintiffs S.E.T. S.J.T., H.E.T.,

H.R.T., and A.K.T. suffered damages in the form of loss of the consortium of their mother

and medical bills.

78. As a result of the assault and kidnapping, Plaintiff Kevin Todd suffered

damages in the form of loss of the consortium of his wife, and damages in the form of

medical bills.

11
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(As to Defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections)
(Negligence or Gross Negligence)
(S.C. Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-50, et seq.)

79. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth herein in paragraphs

1 through 78 above, incorporating the allegations herein by reference.

80. At all times relevant herein, SCDC had the duty to provide mental health

and addiction care to Evans. S.C. Code Ann. § 24-1-130.

81. SCDC knew or should have known that Evans was addicted and had severe

mental health problems which required appropriate treatment.

82. SCDC knew or should have known that by failing to provide Evans with

treatment for his mental health and addiction problems while he was in SCDC custody,

Evans would continue to have mental health and addiction problems upon his release.

83. SCDC knew or should have known that by failing to provide Evans with

treatment for his mental health and addiction problems, Evans was at significant risk of

committing violence against individuals such as Plaintiffs.

84. SCDC knew or should have known that by failing to provide Evans with

treatment for his mental health and addiction problems, Evans would almost certainly use

controlled substances upon his release.

85. SCDC knew or should have known that if Evans used controlled substances

upon his release, this would increase the risk that Evans would commit violence against

citizens such as Plaintiffs.

86. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, SCDC consciously failed

to provide Evans with appropriate mental health or addiction treatment.

12
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
87. SCDC failed to act in accordance with its duty to provide appropriate mental

health and addiction care to Evans when it failed to provide mental health care to Evans

when he requested it.

88. SCDC failed to act in accordance with its duty to provide appropriate mental

health and addiction care to Evans when it failed to provide him with addiction care even

though he had a documented history of addiction and was found to be in possession of

drugs during his incarceration.

89. SCDC was reckless, willful, wanton, careless, negligent, and/or, in the

alternative, grossly negligent in the following particulars:

a. In consciously failing exercise due care in failing to provide Evans with

addiction care even though it knew Evans had addiction problems; and/or,

b. In consciously failing to exercise due care in failing to provide Evans with

mental health care even though Evans requested mental health care.

90. If SCDC had acted in accordance with its duty and provided Evans with

appropriate mental health and addiction care, Evans would not have immediately started

consuming illegal drugs, drinking to excess, and committing violent crimes against the

Plaintiffs and others upon his release from incarceration with SCDC.

91. Plaintiffs suffered actual damages such as medical bills and permanent

impairment as a result of the trauma they endured due to SCDC’s negligence as

described herein.

92. All of the above acts, delicts, and omissions ere known or should have been

known and singularly and combining and concurring were the direct and proximate cause

of injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to: medical

13
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
bills; pain and suffering; permanent physical impairment; mental impairment; lost wages;

and deprivation of the opportunity to conduct their normal activities.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION


(As to Defendant South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon
Services)
(Negligence or Gross Negligence)
(S.C. Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-50, et seq.)

93. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth herein in paragraphs

1 through 78 above, incorporating the allegations herein by reference.

94. At all times relevant herein, DPPP had the duty to monitor Evans while he

was on parole, including, but not limited to the duty to report that Evans was in parole to

the applicable databases and law enforcement authorities. S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-660.

95. DPPP failed to exercise due care in failing in its duty to properly monitor

Evans.

96. DPPP failed to exercise due care in failing in its duty to report his parole

status to the applicable databases and law enforcement authorities.

97. DPPP failed to exercise due care in failing to take prompt steps to obtain a

warrant for Evans when he broke the terms of his parole by failing to report to DPPP

within 24 hours of his release from SCDC custody.

98. If DPPP had performed its duty, Evans would not have been able to injure

Plaintiffs.

99. DPPP knew or should have known that by failing to report Evans as being

on parole to the applicable databases and law enforcement authorities, Evans could

encounter law enforcement while breaking the terms of his parole and law enforcement

would not know he was on parole or that he was breaking the terms of his parole.

14
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
100. DPPP knew or should have known that by failing to take steps to obtain a

warrant for Evans when he broke the terms of his parole by failing to report to DPPP

within 24 hours of his release from SCDC custody, Evans could encounter law

enforcement while breaking the terms of his parole and law enforcement would not know

that he was wanted for breaking the terms of his parole.

101. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, DPPP failed to report

Evans’s parole status to the applicable databases and law enforcement authorities.

102. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, DPPP failed to take

steps to obtain a warrant for Evans for violating the terms of his parole by failing to report

to DPPP within 24 hours of his release.

103. DPPP was reckless, willful, wanton, careless, negligent, and/or, in the

alternative, grossly negligent in the following particulars:

a. In failing to place Evans in its database as a felon on parole;

b. In failing to take steps to obtain a warrant for Evans’s arrest for breaking the

terms of his parole by failing to report to DPPP within 24 hours of his

release; and/or,

c. In failing to report Evans’s status as a felon on parole to the applicable law

enforcement authorities.

104. Plaintiffs suffered actual damages such as medical bills and permanent

impairment as a result of the trauma they endured due to DPPP’s negligence as described

herein.

105. All of the above acts, delicts, and omissions ere known or should have been

known and singularly and combining and concurring were the direct and proximate cause

15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
of injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to: medical

bills; pain and suffering; permanent physical impairment; mental impairment; lost wages;

and deprivation of the opportunity to conduct their normal activities.

FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION


(As to Defendant Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office)
(Negligence or Gross Negligence)
(S.C. Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-50, et seq.)

106. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth herein in paragraphs

1 through 78, incorporating the allegations herein by reference.

107. At all times relevant herein, SCSO had the duty to patrol Spartanburg

County and to use every means to prevent or detect, arrest and prosecute violations of

the law. S.C. Code Ann. § 23-13-70.

108. SCSO failed to act in accordance with this duty when it did not investigate

Hayden’s disappearance or alternatively, when it did investigate Hayden’s disappearance

but failed to enter her into NCIC or enter Evans as a person of interest into NCIC.

109. SCSO knew or should have known that Hayden was a missing person.

110. SCSO knew or should have known that Evans was a person of interest in

Hayden’s disappearance.

111. SCSO knew or should have known that by failing to report Hayden as a

missing person and Evans as a person of interest in her disappearance, Evans could be

encountered by other law enforcement and said law enforcement would have had no idea

that Evans was involved in Hayden’s disappearance.

112. SCSO knew or should have known that by failing to report Hayden’s

disappearance and Evan’s involvement, Evans would be free to commit crimes against

other citizens.

16
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
113. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, SCSO failed to report

Hayden’s disappearance to NCIC.

114. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, SCSO failed to contact

DPPP to check Evans’s parole status online in the public database and/or to report

Evans’s violation of the terms of his parole.

115. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, SCSO failed to issue an

APB or BOLO for Hayden.

116. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, SCSO failed to issue an

APB or BOLO for Evans.

117. SCSO was reckless, willful, wanton, careless, negligent, and/or, in the

alternative, grossly negligent in the following particulars:

a. In failing to exercise even the slightest care in failing to investigate Hayden’s

disappearance;

b. In failing to exercise even the slightest care in failing to report Hayden’s

disappearance to NCIC;

c. In failing to exercise even the slightest care in failing to issue an APB or

BOLO for Hayden or Evans;

d. In failing to exercise even the slightest care in failing to report the possibility

of Evan’s involvement in Hayden’s disappearance to NCIC; and/or

e. In failing to contact DPPP and report that Evans was a suspect in Hayden’s

disappearance such that his parole would be revoked and a warrant issued.

17
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
118. Plaintiffs suffered actual damages such as medical bills and permanent

impairment as a result of the trauma they endured due to SCSO’s negligence as

described herein.

119. All of the above acts, delicts, and omissions ere known or should have been

known and singularly and combining and concurring were the direct and proximate cause

of injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to: medical

bills; pain and suffering; permanent physical impairment; mental impairment; lost wages;

and deprivation of the opportunity to conduct their normal activities.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION


(As to Defendant Charleston County Sheriff’s Office)
(Negligence or Gross Negligence)
(S.C. Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-50, et seq.)

120. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth herein in paragraphs

1 through 78 above, incorporating the allegations herein by reference.

121. At all times relevant herein, CCSO had the duty to patrol Charleston County

and to use every means to prevent or detect, arrest and prosecute violations of the law.

S.C. Code Ann. § 23-13-70.

122. CCSO failed to act in accordance with this duty to arrest or even investigate

Evans when CCSO deputies stopped Evans before he assaulted, battered, and injured

Plaintiffs.

123. If CCSO had acted in accordance with its duty and held Evans for

questioning, it would have discovered that Evans was breaching the terms of his parole

by being intoxicated.

124. If CSCO had acted in accordance with its duty and held Evans for

questioning, Evans would have been unable to commit his heinous acts against Plaintiffs.

18
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
125. CCSO knew or should have known that a person who does not have

identification, who is visibly intoxicated, who is attempting to use non-functioning credit

cards, and who is driving a vehicle should be held and questioned regarding his actions.

126. CSCO knew or should have known that failure to hold a person who holds

no identification, who is visibly intoxicated, who is attempting to use non-functioning credit

cards, and who is driving a vehicle would result in that person causing harm to others.

127. In addition, if CCSO had acting in accordance with its duty, CCSO would

have discovered that Evans was a person of interest in Hayden’s disappearance.

128. CSCO failed to contact DPPP to check Evans’s parole status online and/or

to report Evans’s violation of the terms of his parole.

129. If CSCO had acted in accordance with its duty, Evans would have been

unable to commit his heinous acts against Plaintiffs.

130. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, CCSO failed to hold and

question Evans even though Evans did not have identification, was trying to use non-

functioning credit cards, was visibly intoxicated, and was driving a vehicle owned by

another person.

131. CCSO was reckless, willful, wanton, careless, negligent, and/or, in the

alternative, grossly negligent in the following particulars:

a. In failing to exercise the even the slightest care to hold and question Evans

when he was behaving in a suspicious manner in their jurisdiction;

b. In failing to exercise the even the slightest care to hold and question Evans

when he was severely intoxicated and in possession of a vehicle;

19
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
c. In failing to exercise the even the slightest care to hold and question Evans

when he attempted to use credit cards which were declined and did not

have identification to prove ownership of the credit cards;

d. In failing to exercise the even the slightest care to hold and question Evans

when he was driving a vehicle owned by another person; and/or,

e. In failing to contact DPPP or to check Evans’s parole status online in the

public database and/or to report to DPPP Evan’s violations of the terms of

his parole.

132. Plaintiffs suffered actual damages such as medical bills and permanent

impairment as a result of the trauma they endured due to CCSO’s negligence as

described herein.

133. All of the above acts, delicts, and omissions ere known or should have been

known and singularly and combining and concurring were the direct and proximate cause

of injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to: medical

bills; pain and suffering; permanent physical impairment; mental impairment; lost wages;

and deprivation of the opportunity to conduct their normal activities.

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION


(As to Defendant Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department)
(Negligence or Gross Negligence)
(S.C. Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-50, et seq.)

134. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth herein in paragraphs

1 through 78 above, incorporating the allegations herein by reference.

135. At all times relevant herein, BCSD had the duty to patrol Berkeley County

and to use every means to prevent or detect, arrest and prosecute violations of the law.

S.C. Code Ann. § 23-13-70.

20
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
136. BCSD failed to act in accordance with this duty to arrest or even properly

investigate Evans when he was stopped by BCSD deputies two days before he assaulted,

battered, and injured Plaintiffs.

137. BCSD knew or should have known that a person who is visibly intoxicated,

has a suspended license and is driving the car of a woman who was missing should be

held and questioned regarding his actions.

138. BCSD knew or should have known that failure to hold and question a person

who visibly intoxicated, has a suspended license, and is driving the car of a missing

woman would result in that person causing harm to others.

139. Despite this actual and/or constructive knowledge, BCSD failed to hold and

question Evans even though Evans had a suspended license, was driving the car of a

missing woman, and was acting suspicious and intoxicated in their jurisdiction.

140. If BCSD had acted in accordance with its duty and held Evans for

questioning, it would have discovered that Evans was breaching the terms of his parole

by being intoxicated, and he would have been unable to commit his heinous acts against

Plaintiffs.

141. In addition, if BCSD had acted in accordance with its duty, BCSD would

have discovered that Evans was a person of interest in Hayden’s disappearance and he

would have been unable to commit his heinous acts against Plaintiffs.

142. BCSD was reckless, willful, wanton, careless, negligent, and/or, in the

alternative, grossly negligent in the following particulars:

a. In failing to exercise the even the slightest care to hold and question Evans

when he was behaving in a suspicious manner in their jurisdiction;

21
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
b. In failing to exercise the even the slightest care to hold and question Evans

when he was severely intoxicated and violating the terms of his parole;

c. In failing to exercise the even the slightest care to hold and question Evans

when he was asking for gas money and yet had a suspended license which

would not have allowed him to drive any vehicle with gas he purchased;

d. In failing to exercise the even the slightest care to hold and question Evans

when he was driving a vehicle owned by a woman who BCSD knew or

should have known was missing; and/or,

e. In failing to contact DPPP or to check Evans’s parole status online in the

public database and/or to report to DPPP Evan’s violations of the terms of

his parole.

143. Plaintiffs suffered actual damages such as medical bills and permanent

impairment as a result of the trauma they endured due to BCSD’s negligence as

described herein.

144. All of the above acts, delicts, and omissions ere known or should have been

known and singularly and combining and concurring were the direct and proximate cause

of injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to: medical

bills; pain and suffering; permanent physical impairment; mental impairment; lost wages;

and deprivation of the opportunity to conduct their normal activities.

FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION


(As to All Defendants)
(Loss of Consortium)

145. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth herein in paragraphs

1 through 78 above, incorporating the allegations herein by reference.

22
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
146. At the time of the events complained of in this Complaint, Plaintiffs Kevin

and Brittany Todd were married and they continue to be married.

147. At the time of the events complained of in this Complaint, Plaintiff Brittany

Todd was the mother of the minor Plaintiffs S.E.T., S.J.T., H.R.T., H.E.T., and A.K.T.

148. As a direct and proximate result of injuring Plaintiff Brittany Todd,

Defendants together tortuously violated Plaintiffs S.E.T., S.J.T., H.R.T., H.E.T., and

A.K.T. right to the companionship, aid, society, and services of their mother at common

law.

149. As a direct and proximate result of injuring Plaintiff Brittany Todd,

Defendants together tortuously violated Plaintiff Kevin Todd’s right to the companionship,

aid, society, and services of his spouse at common law and/or pursuant to S.C. Code

Ann. § 15-75-20.

150. As a result of Defendants’ tortious acts, Plaintiff Todd has suffered the loss

of companionship, aid, society, and services of Plaintiff Brittany Todd.

151. As a result of Defendants’ tortious acts, Plaintiffs S.E.T., S.J.T., H.R.T.,

H.E.T., and A.K.T have suffered the loss of companionship, aid, society, and services of

Plaintiff Brittany Todd.

23
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Jan 31 5:21 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP1000620
WHEREFORE, having fully pled, Plaintiffs request that this action be tried by a jury

and pray that judgment be awarded against each Defendant for actual damages in such

an amount as shall fairly, justly, and adequately compensate them for their losses,

consequential damages, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

proper.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Nekki Shutt________________
Nekki Shutt (SC Bar No. 8784)
Sarah J.M. Cox (SC Bar No. 108314)
BURNETTE SHUTT & McDANIEL, PA
912 Lady Street, Second Floor
PO Box 1929
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Telephone: (803) 904-7912
Fax: (803) 904-7910
NShutt@BurnetteShutt.Law
SCox@BurnetteShutt.Law

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS


Columbia, South Carolina

January 31, 2020

24