ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

)
COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2023-CP-42-01363

Andy Reese and Beverly Reese, as )

Personal Representatives of the )
Estate of Lavell N. Lane, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) ANSWER
) (Jury Trial Demanded)
v. )
)
Spartanburg County and Spartanburg )
County Sheriff’s Office, )
)
Defendants. )
)

Defendants hereby answer Plaintiff's Complaint as follows:

FOR A FIRST DEFENSE

1. Defendants deny each and every allegation of the Complaint not hereinafter

admitted, qualified, or explained.

2. The allegations of paragraph 1 are admitted upon information and belief.

3. The allegations of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 call for legal conclusions to

which no response is required.

4. The allegations of paragraph 6 are denied as written.

5. Defendants are without sufficient information to form an opinion as to the

veracity of the allegations of paragraph 7 and therefore deny same.

6. The allegations of paragraph 8 are denied.

7. The allegations of paragraph 9 call for legal conclusions to which no

response is required.

Page 1 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
8. In responding to the allegations of paragraph 10, Defendants admit that the

Spartanburg County Detention Center had adequate and appropriate medical care

providers at the jail during the time of Mr. Lane’s detainment.

9. The allegations of paragraphs 11 and 12 are denied.

10. In responding to the allegations of paragraph 13, Defendants would crave

reference to any written documents or records, medical or otherwise, referenced therein.

It is admitted that Mr. Lane was arrested and booked into the Spartanburg County

Detention Center on September 28, 2022 for the charge of Assault and Battery Third

Degree. Defendants are without sufficient information to form an opinion as to the veracity

of the allegations in paragraph 13 that “Mr. Lane had been sent to the jail from the hospital

where he allegedly had a psychotic episode causing him to be agitated and combative” and

therefore deny same.

11. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 14 as written, and deny any

allegations of wrongdoing contained therein. Defendants do admit that on September 29,

2022, Mr. Lane was given Aripiprazole Lauroxil 1064 MG in his right gluteus, and

Aripiprazole Lauroxil 675 MG in his right deltoid.

12. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraphs 15.

13. In responding to the allegations of paragraph 16, it is admitted that Mr. Lane

was arrested and booked into the Spartanburg County Detention Center on October 2,

2022 at approximately 10:55 p.m. All remaining allegations of said paragraph are denied.

14. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraphs 17, 18, and 19, and would

crave further reference to the reports and videos referenced therein.

Page 2 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
15. In responding to the allegations of paragraph 20, Defendants admit that Mr.

Lane was pronounced dead on October 3, 2022. Defendants would crave reference to the

entire Coroner’s Report and the Death Certificate as to the cause of Mr. Lane’s death.

16. The allegations of paragraph 21 are denied.

17. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 22 as applicable to them.

18. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 23 as applicable to them.

19. The allegations of paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 are denied.

20. Defendants admit so much of Paragraph 30 as previously admitted, and deny

or qualify so much of Paragraph 30 as previously denied or qualified.

21. The allegations of paragraph 31, including all subparagraphs, are denied.

22. The allegations of paragraph 32 are denied.

23. Defendants admit so much of Paragraph 33 as previously admitted, and deny

or qualify so much of Paragraph 33 as previously denied or qualified.

24. Paragraph 34 is a legal statement which requires no response.

25. The allegations of paragraph 35 are denied.

26. The allegations of paragraph 36, including all subparagraphs, are denied.

27. The allegations of paragraph 37 are denied.

FOR A SECOND DEFENSE1

28. The allegations of the previous defense are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

1
Since Defendants have not yet engaged in discovery with Plaintiffs to learn all of the
facts and circumstances relating to the matters at issue in the Complaint, Defendants hereby
reserve the right to amend their Answer to assert additional affirmative defenses or abandon
affirmative defenses once discovery has been completed

Page 3 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
29. Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state any cause of action against Defendants and

should therefore be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP.

FOR A THIRD DEFENSE

30. The allegations of the previous defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

31. Defendants are subject to the defenses and limitations prescribed by the

South Carolina Tort Claims Act (“SCTCA”), S.C. Code Ann. §15-78-10, et seq.

32. Defendants’ liability for torts is therefore governed and controlled by the

SCTCA.

FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE

33. The allegations of the previous defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

34. Defendants hereby raise all relevant affirmative defenses contained in § 15-

78-60, as well as all other liability limitations contained in the SCTCA.

FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE

35. The allegations of the previous defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

36. During the period and events alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants

were acting in accordance and compliance with the specific laws, rules, and regulations

of the State of South Carolina. Consequently, Defendants are immune from suit and plead

such statutory and regulatory authorization as a complete defense to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Page 4 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE

37. The allegations of the previous defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

38. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the terms of S.C. Code Ann. §15-78-60(5)

because a governmental agency is not liable for a loss resulting from the exercise of

discretion or judgment by the governmental entity or employee or the performance or

failure to perform any act or service which is in the discretion or judgment of the

governmental entity or employee.

FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE

39. The allegations of the previous defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

40. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are against a governmental entity, by

virtue of which plaintiff’s recovery, if any, is limited by §15-78-120 of the Code of Laws of

South Carolina (1976 as amended) which is pled as a partial bar to this action. Plaintiffs

maximum recovery, if any, is controlled and limited by the provisions of § 15-78-120 of the

SCTCA, which prohibits, among other things, Plaintiffs recovery of punitive damages,

attorneys’ fees, or interest.

FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE

41. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

42. Plaintiffs are barred from relief to the extent they failed to mitigate their

damages.

Page 5 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
FOR A NINTH DEFENSE

43 The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

44. The damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs were not proximately caused

by the actions of Defendants.

FOR A TENTH DEFENSE

45. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

46. The damages asserted by Plaintiffs are speculative.

FOR AN ELEVENTH DEFENSE

47. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

48. Defendants are not responsible or liable to the Plaintiffs for any damages

caused as the result of the negligent, careless, reckless, willful, and/or wanton conduct of

any third party, which conduct was unforeseeable to Defendants and which was the sole

proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages, if any.

FOR A TWELFTH DEFENSE

49. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

50. Any injuries and damages Plaintiffs suffered were due to and proximately

caused by the contributory negligence, carelessness, gross negligence, wilfulness,

Page 6 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
wantonness, and recklessness of Mr. Lane in failing to exercise due care for his own safety

and well being.

51. The contributory negligence, carelessness, wilfulness, wantonness, gross

negligence, and recklessness of Mr. Lane was greater than any alleged wrongful conduct

on the part of Defendants; consequently, Defendants plead contributory negligence as a

complete bar to plaintiff’s action.

FOR A THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

52. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

53. Any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were due to and proximately

caused by Mr. Lane’s own negligence, carelessness, wilfulness, wantonness, gross

negligence, and recklessness as set forth above. Even if such conduct on the part of Mr.

Lane did not exceed the alleged wrongdoing of Defendants, such conduct by Mr. Lane at

least contributed substantially to his alleged injuries and damages; consequently, Plaintiffs’

recovery, if any, should be reduced by the percentage of Mr. Lane’s negligent, careless,

wilful, wanton, grossly negligent, and/or reckless conduct.

FOR A FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

54. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

55. Defendants acted reasonably, without malice, and in good faith at all times

during their interactions with Mr. Lane.

Page 7 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
FOR A FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

56. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

57. Defendants are not liable because Mr. Lane assumed the risk of any and all

injuries he may have allegedly sustained.

FOR A SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

58. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

59. During the period alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants were acting in

good faith and was not acting in a malicious manner with corrupt motives. In addition,

Defendants, through their conduct, did not violate any clearly established statutory or

constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have been aware. Defendants

therefore plead the defense of qualified immunity as a complete defense and bar to

Plaintiff's Complaint.

FOR A SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

60. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

61. Defendants do not waive any of the rights, privileges or immunities afforded

them under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, including but not limited to Eleventh

Amendment Immunity.

FOR AN EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

62. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

Page 8 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
consistent with this defense.

63. The actions/inactions and conduct of Defendants, to the extent such may

have actually occurred, were objectively reasonable under the circumstances of which they

were aware. Their actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional, federal, or

statutory right of which a reasonable official should have known, and they are therefore

entitled to qualified immunity.

FOR A NINETEENTH DEFENSE

64. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

65. During the performance/non-performance of the alleged actions, Defendants

did not perform or act in bad faith, with corrupt motives, or in a malicious manner, and are

therefore immune from suit.

FOR A TWENTIETH DEFENSE

66. The allegations of the above defenses are realleged to the extent they are

consistent with this defense.

67. The Complaint, as drafted, sues the State of South Carolina through its

agents. Plaintiff is prohibited from suing Defendants, as doing so would be the equivalent

of suing the State of South Carolina and in violation of the Eleventh Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

FOR A TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

68. The above defenses are realleged to the extent they are consistent with this

defense.

Page 9 of 10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jul 06 10:23 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP4201363
69. Defendants assert the public duty rule as an affirmative defense.

FOR A TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

70. The above defenses are realleged to the extent they are consistent with this

defense.

72. The damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs were not proximately caused

by the actions of these Defendants.

FOR A TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

73. The above defenses are realleged to the extent they are consistent with this

defense.

74. Plaintiffs have failed to join one or more necessary and indispensable parties

to this lawsuit.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants prays that

the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that they be awarded the costs of this action,

and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.

HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, P.A.

/s/ A. Todd Darwin

A. Todd Darwin, SC Bar #7032
Post Office Box 1897
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304
(864) 594-5300
tdarwin@holcombebomar.com

Attorneys for Defendants

July 5, 2023

Page 10 of 10