claims to go forward against the Division. It is for a jury to determine, under appropriate instruction of law, whether a special duty arises to protect the Appellant from the Division’s alleged negligence. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand this case for reinstatement of the Appellant’s claims based upon the allegations of a special relationship and a special duty. J.H., 224 W.Va. at 158-59, 680 S.E.2d at 403-04 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Clearly the decision in J.H. recognizes a claim may be maintained against the State under the special relationship exception. Therefore it was legally wrong for the majority opinion to suggest otherwise. See McCormick v. West Virginia Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 202 W.Va. 189, 503 S.E.2d 502 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Based upon the foregoing, I dissent. 1 . The
holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that a jury could find that the department of corrections owed a duty to a social worker killed in her apartment by an inmate she once counseled in a prison holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments holding that an inmate stated a claim under the due process clause when guards had placed her in a cell with a dangerous inmate holding that a corrections officers failure to intervene in a beating can be a basis of liability for an eighth amendment violation under  1983 if the corrections officer had a reasonable opportunity to do so