South Carolina Sex Abuse Lawsuit

A second woman has filed a lawsuit against Myrtle Beach pastors John-Paul “JP” Miller and his father, Reginald Wayne Miller, alleging that they failed to protect minors from sexual misconduct at their churches and school.

The lawsuit, filed last week, claims that JP Miller used Cathedral Hall Academy, a private Christian school, to engage in inappropriate conduct with underage students. The plaintiff, referred to as Jane Doe 2, alleges that she was subjected to misconduct starting at age 14 and that when she reported it, she faced intimidation and mistreatment rather than support. According to the complaint, Wayne Miller forced her to write “I will not lie about John-Paul Miller” 5,000 times, while classmates followed the Millers’ lead by ridiculing and harassing her.

The lawsuit describes Cathedral Hall Academy as lacking legitimate coursework, operating in a repurposed bowling alley with unqualified teachers, and failing to provide safeguards for students. It also notes previous allegations against Wayne Miller, who relocated his ministry to Myrtle Beach after his former church collapsed amid controversy.

In a new lawsuit filed on Thursday, a South Carolina woman has sued Shree Kishabapa Group, Inc., alleging that the company knowingly benefited from her sex trafficking at a Red Roof Inn in Sumter, South Carolina, in 2018 and 2019. The lawsuit, filed under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, claims that the defendant, as the owner and operator of the hotel, facilitated and profited from the trafficking by renting rooms to her trafficker despite numerous red flags.

The complaint outlines that the trafficker used force, fraud, and coercion to compel the plaintiff into commercial sex acts on the premises, often in plain view of hotel staff. The lawsuit alleges that hotel employees witnessed clear signs of trafficking, including excessive foot traffic to her room, visible injuries, signs of distress, and the presence of illicit materials, yet failed to intervene. It further claims that hotel staff accepted payments from the trafficker. It gets worse. The lawsuits says that in some instances, hotel staff acted as lookouts to alert the trafficker of law enforcement activity.

The plaintiff argues that the defendant violated the TVPRA by knowingly receiving financial benefits from the trafficking, failing to implement anti-trafficking policies, and allowing the continued exploitation to occur on its property. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and other relief.

A 53-year-old former principal and teacher has been arrested in Columbus County on multiple child sex abuse charges, including sexual activity and attempted sexual activity by a substitute parent, indecent liberties with a minor, child abuse sexual act, crimes against nature, and misdemeanor sexual battery. He is being held on a $2 million bond. Locklear previously worked at Darlington Middle School, but the Darlington County School District (DCSD) stated he is no longer employed and confirmed their cooperation with the investigation.

The viability of a claim against the school system hinges on whether individuals within the district or other facilities suspected or should have suspected that something was amiss with this guy. Our lawyers know from experience that sexual predators often leave behind a trail of warning signs—behavioral red flags, inappropriate comments, unexplained boundary violations, or even formal complaints. Too often, these signs are ignored by those in positions of authority, either due to lack of training, disbelief, or a misguided attempt to protect the institution’s reputation.

In this case, if evidence emerges that school personnel observed questionable behavior or received complaints but failed to investigate or intervene appropriately, the district could face significant liability under theories of negligent supervision, hiring, or retention. The legal inquiry would focus on what the district knew—or reasonably should have known—and what steps, if any, were taken to protect students.

Morningstar Fellowship Church is facing civil lawsuits alleging that a volunteer at one of its churches in Fort Mill, South Carolina, sexually abused at least three male minors. The boys claim that the church volunteer, a former police officer who is now facing criminal charges, gave them alcohol at church activities and then sexually abused them. Now lawyers defending the church are citing the guarantee of religious freedom in the Constitution as a defense. The claim is that the government has no authority to hold the church liable for sexual abuse of children based on the freedom of religion clause. Attorneys for the victims are calling this what it is—a dumb legal argument.

In a new lawsuit filed in Charleston, South Carolina, a family alleges that Dorchester School District Two and Fort Dorchester High School failed to protect their 14-year-old daughter from a sexual assault by an older student. The complaint claims that the school allowed the assault to occur during unsupervised testing and failed to initiate a Title IX investigation or provide protective measures. Instead, the school allegedly exposed Jane Doe to further harm by permitting contact with her assailant and pursuing false disciplinary actions against her.

These cases are generally much tougher to prove than claims involving facility and students. You can win them under the right facts but it is harder to find a nexus between the assault and the school’s negligence.

A new Uber sex abuse lawsuit from two families from Rock Hill, South Carolina over the alleged trafficking of two minor girls across state lines. The lawsuit claims that Uber drivers transported 12-year-old and 13-year-old girls without parental consent to and from the home of a sex trafficker in North Carolina, where one of the minors was violently assaulted.

The complaint alleges that Uber, despite prior warnings from the FBI and lawmakers about the use of its platform in sex trafficking, failed to implement sufficient safety measures, such as mandatory driver training and age verification protocols. The plaintiffs argue that Uber’s negligence in enforcing its policies facilitated the trafficking, making Uber liable under South Carolina’s Trafficking Against Persons statute. The families seek damages for the awful emotional and physical trauma inflicted on the minors, along with claims for negligence, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit was filed in York County but Uber removed the case to federal court to be included in the Uber sexual assault MDL.

In Covil v. Pennsylvania National, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a ruling involving asbestos liabilities that has an impact on sex abuse lawsuits and the search for insurance coverage in those cases.

The defendant wanted a pro rata allocation method for insurance coverage. Instead, the court upheld the “all sums” approach, which requires an insurer to cover the entire loss if any part of the injury occurred during the policy period.

This is particularly advantageous for sex abuse victims, whose injuries often span several years. In such cases, the pro rata method could have significantly reduced the compensation available by diluting the coverage across multiple years.

The “all sums” approach, by contrast, ensures that victims can access the full insurance coverage from any policy period triggered by the abuse, potentially leading to much larger payouts. This legal precedent, while stemming from a different context, supports the notion that insurers should fully honor their coverage obligations, which is crucial for providing adequate compensation to those who have suffered long-term harm from sexual abuse.

Recent criminal charges related to child sex abuse material have surfaced in South Carolina, with several arrests made across the state. In York County, three men were arrested following a cyber tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The charges against them include multiple counts of second and third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor, with potential prison sentences ranging from 30 to 100 years if convicted.

In Charleston, a 73-year-old man was arrested for distributing child sex abuse material, facing charges that could lead to up to 10 years in prison. Similarly, in Taylors, another individual was arrested on multiple charges of sexual exploitation of a minor, each count carrying a potential 10-year sentence.

Additionally, a mental health counselor in Greenville was charged with several offenses, including criminal sexual conduct with a minor, after a juvenile reported being sexually abused by him.

A new sexual assault lawsuit was filed in Horry County, South Carolina. A former employee of Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. has filed a lawsuit alleging severe sexual harassment and assault by a supervisor.

The plaintiff’s suit contends that the harassment began with her supervisor making inappropriate sexual advances and comments, including whispering suggestive remarks about his wife not having sex with him, saying he needed her for “four minutes.” He regularly showed her explicit images. The situation escalated when the supervisor allegedly attempted to drag the plaintiff into a bedroom at a sales cabin, which caused her to scream for help and left her terrified.

She reported this to her supervisor. What was done? According to her lawsuit, nothing was done. Her reports to management, including detailing her history of PTSD due to past sexual abuse, were allegedly dismissed, and no formal complaint was filed with Human Resources. Sexual predators often target women who have been abused before.

She was forced to continue working with the supervisor, which exacerbated her emotional distress and anxiety. The plaintiff contends that the company’s failure to act and the retaliatory assignment of shifts with the supervisor led to her constructive termination.

The case has been removed and will likely proceed in federal court.

If you were sexually abused in South Carolina, you have the right to pursue both criminal charges against the abuser and civil litigation to seek financial compensation. A criminal case is prosecuted by the state and may result in prison time for the perpetrator. A civil lawsuit is filed by the victim to recover damages for medical expenses, emotional trauma, lost wages, and other consequences of the abuse. Even if the abuser was never arrested or convicted, you can still file a civil claim as long as you are within the statute of limtiations (see answer to question #3).

You can sue the individual perpetrator. The problem is these people rarely have the money to pay a verdict or settlement.  What you reallly need is a path to hold a third party accountable for enabling or allowing the abuse to occur. This could include:

• Schools, juvenile detention centers, colleges, and universities that failed to prevent abuse by teachers, coaches, or students.
• Churches and religious institutions that covered up or ignored misconduct by clergy or volunteers.
• Youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts, youth sports leagues, and summer camps that failed to protect children.
• Employers who negligently hired or supervised an abuser.
• Hotels, motels, and businesses that profited from sex trafficking and ignored clear signs of exploitation.
• Foster care agencies and residential treatment centers that failed to protect vulnerable children.

South Carolina has different deadlines depending on when the abuse occurred:

• For child victims (under 18 at the time of abuse): You have until age 27 to file a lawsuit.
• For adult victims: You generally have three years from the date of the abuse or from when you reasonably discovered its impact to file a claim.
• For delayed discovery cases: If you only recently realized the psychological impact of the abuse, you may have up to three years from that discovery date to file a lawsuit.

This is, compartively speaking, a very restricitve deadline to sue.  We are hoping the South Carolina legislature steps up in the future.  Right now, we are where we are.

Defense attorneys in sex abuse cases rely on a handful of common strategies, especially when representing schools, churches, hotels, and other institutions accused of negligence. These tactics often sound compelling at first but tend to fall apart when challenged by an experienced plaintiffs’ lawyer. Here are some of the most frequently used defenses and why they often fail.

1. The “No Prior Knowledge” Defense

This is one of the most common arguments institutions make. They claim they cannot be held liable because they had no prior complaints about the abuser and did not know anything was wrong.

This argument often fails because sexual predators rarely operate in isolation. Abuse is rarely a one-time event, and in most cases, there were warning signs—boundary violations, inappropriate conduct, or prior complaints that were ignored or dismissed. Institutions frequently claim they had no way of knowing, but internal records, depositions, and witness testimony often tell a different story. Lawsuits have uncovered emails, reports, or informal complaints that show decision-makers were aware of concerns long before the abuse was exposed. Even in cases where no written complaints exist, institutions can still be found liable if they failed to have proper safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

2. The “Statute of Limitations” Defense

If the abuse happened years ago, the defense will often argue that the case should be dismissed because the victim waited too long to come forward. In South Carolina, child victims have until their twenty-seventh birthday to file a civil lawsuit, and adult victims generally have three years. Defense attorneys will try to frame any delay as unreasonable.

This argument often fails because trauma affects memory, disclosure, and reporting. Many survivors do not fully process what happened to them until much later in life. Courts recognize that delayed reporting is common, especially in cases involving minors or victims who were abused in trusted environments like schools or churches. Additionally, South Carolina’s discovery rule may allow for an extension of the filing deadline if the victim did not realize the full extent of their harm until later.

3. The “Consent” Defense

In cases involving teenagers, workplace abuse, or situations with a power imbalance, some defendants will argue that the victim consented to the interaction or engaged in a voluntary relationship.

This argument fails because South Carolina law does not allow minors to consent to sexual activity with an adult. The law recognizes that even if a minor appears to go along with an adult’s advances, the adult is still responsible. In workplace cases or other situations where the abuser holds power over the victim, consent is legally questionable because of coercion, fear of retaliation, or emotional manipulation. Juries tend to reject the idea that a vulnerable person can freely consent in these situations.

4. The “Lack of Corroboration” Defense

Defense lawyers frequently argue that there is no physical evidence, no eyewitnesses, and no police report. They suggest that if the abuse really happened, there would be more proof.

This argument almost always fails because most sex abuse happens in private, and victims often do not disclose their abuse immediately. Jurors get this and, deep down, defense lawyers know that which is why setttlement are rarely discounted becasue of a lack of corroboration.

Many survivors wait years before telling anyone, and when they do, physical evidence is no longer available. However, courts recognize that a victim’s testimony alone can be enough to prove a case. Additionally, cases against institutions often involve patterns of abuse. A single victim coming forward may lead to others telling similar stories, providing further credibility. Even if no other victims come forward, an institution’s failure to follow proper procedures, hire qualified staff, or act on past concerns can be enough to establish liability.

5. The “Institutional Immunity” Defense

Churches, schools, and nonprofits sometimes claim that they are protected by charitable immunity laws or constitutional protections related to religious freedom.

This argument often fails because South Carolina courts have been unwilling to allow institutions to escape liability under the guise of religious or charitable protections. While some legal doctrines limit damages in certain nonprofit cases, they do not provide blanket immunity for sexual abuse claims. Courts consistently hold that institutions have a duty to protect those in their care, and they cannot use religious freedom or charitable status to shield themselves from liability when they fail to do so.

You do not have to report the abuse to the police to file a civil lawsuit. A lot of survivors never go to law enforcement, and for good reason—fear, shame, or even threats from their abuser keep them silent. But that does not mean they do not have a case. The legal system does not require a police report to move forward with a civil claim. Your testimony, along with any supporting evidence, can be enough to prove what happened and hold the right people accountable.

Every case is unique, but strong evidence may include:

• Victim testimony—your statement about what happened.
• Medical records or psychological evaluations showing the effects of the abuse.
• Witness testimony from others who saw signs of abuse or misconduct.
• Emails, text messages, or other written communications that corroborate the abuse.
• Institutional records showing prior complaints against the abuser.
• Expert testimony from psychologists, forensic specialists, or industry professionals.

Many cases are won based on testimony alone, especially when the victim is credible and consistent.

The potential value of a sex abuse lawsuit depends on factors such as:

• The severity and duration of the abuse.
• The psychological and emotional harm suffered.
• Whether the abuser had a prior history of misconduct that was ignored.
• Whether an institution enabled or failed to stop the abuse.
• The amount of insurance coverage or assets available to satisfy a judgment.

Sex abuse lawsuit settlements in South Carolina have ranged from tens of thousands to multi-million dollar verdicts.  There is no way to predict the value of your claim without digging really deep into what happened to you and all of the facts.

Yes. South Carolina law allows sex abuse victims to file lawsuits under pseudonyms such as “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” to protect their privacy. The defendant, their attorneys, and the court will know your identity, but your name will not appear in public records or media coverage.

Yes. Religious institutions do not have immunity from lawsuits when they allow or conceal sexual abuse. If a church, diocese, or religious school protected a predator, failed to report known abuse, or ignored warning signs, they can be held accountable for the harm caused.

Yes. If your employer failed to protect you from sexual harassment or assault by a coworker, supervisor, or client, you may have a claim for negligent hiring, supervision, or failure to act on prior complaints. Employers have a legal duty to provide a safe workplace, and they can be liable for damages if they neglected that duty.

Yes, but these cases are more difficult to prove than cases involving abuse by staff. Schools are not automatically liable for peer-on-peer abuse, but they can be held responsible if they:

• Ignored prior complaints about the perpetrator.
• Failed to supervise students properly.
• Did not follow federal Title IX regulations requiring schools to prevent and address sexual harassment.

This is a common issue in sex abuse cases. The best way to secure meaningful compensation is to pursue a third-party lawsuit against an institution, employer, or entity that negligently allowed the abuse to occur. These defendants usually have insurance coverage, making them more likely to pay settlements or verdicts.

Yes. Hotels and motels can be held liable under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) if they knowingly profited from sex trafficking or ignored clear signs of exploitation. It is insane how many people look the other way and ignore the obvious. Many lawsuits have successfully—with huge mulitmillion dollar settlements— held hotel chains accountable for failing to intervene despite obvious red flags such as:

• Frequent visits from older men to a single room.
• Signs of physical abuse or malnutrition in victims.
• Excessive cash payments and refusal to show ID.
• Requests for rooms far from security cameras or multiple keycards for a single room.

Sexual abuse in juvenile detention centers and residential treatment facilities is a major problem in South Carolina. Victims can file civil lawsuits against the facility, the state, or private corporations running these institutions. Claims typically involve:

• Staff members who abused juveniles.
• Lack of supervision leading to inmate-on-inmate assaults.
• Failure to investigate or stop abuse after complaints were made.

The first step is to contact an experienced sex abuse lawyer to discuss your case in confidence. There are no upfront costs, and we only get paid if we win your case. Our legal team is dedicated to holding abusers and institutions accountable and fighting for the justice and compensation you deserve.