is persuasive on the issue of whether Respondent had a special relationship with Appellants. Although the supreme court ultimately vacated the portion of Batson wherein this court found the mother could potentially be liable for her son’s sexual abuse of minor boys in her home under a special relationship exception and a premises liability theory, the supreme court did not expressly disavow this court’s reliance on either of those theories. Doe ex rel. Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 323, 548 S.E.2d 854, 858 (2001). Rather, at issue in Batson was whether it was too early to dismiss the case based on the lack of discovery. Id. at 321, 548 S.E.2d at 857. Because relevant and crucial depositions had yet to occur, the supreme court ruled it was improper for this court to suggest sources 6) (<HOLDING>). I would find the testimony of Respondent’s
holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter holding evidence granddaughter told her grandmother she was being molested by her grandfather was sufficient to raise factual issue about grandmothers knowledge of husbands sexual activities holding that a grandmother could be held liable for failure to protect her granddaughter from a known risk of sexual abuse by the grandfather holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees holding that the department of social and rehabilitation services could be held liable for the sexual abuse of the plaintiff by her stepfather