Roe v. Bibby
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtLockemy, J.
Jane Roe, as parent and natural guardian of Judy Roe, James Roe, and Joyce Roe, minor children under the age of eighteen (minor Appellants), (collectively with Roe, Appellants) argues the circuit court erred in granting Michelle Bibby’s (Respondent) motion for summary judgment. Appellants argue Respondent had a duty to warn them under the special relationship exception and a premises liability theory. We affirm.
*291FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case involves allegations by the minor Appellants of sexual molestation by their neighbor, Daniel Bibby, Sr. The molestation allegedly occurred in a…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bishop v. South Carolina Department of Mental HealthSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- Doe v. MarionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
- Faile v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile JusticeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
- Ballou v. Sigma Nu General FraternityCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986
- Quail Hill, LLC v. County of RichlandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Doe v. CitadelCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2017
- Allen v. Blackbaud IncDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2021
- Christopher Pyatt and Jamila Pyatt v. International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1422, Otis Whaley, and International Longshoremen AssociationDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2025
- Fountain v. FountainDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2025
- Pinckney v. United States of America, TheDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2020
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.