South Carolina Supreme Court Shields Employer After Employee’s Justified Use of Deadly Force

00:00

24:53

Quick Hits

• The South Carolina Supreme Court recently held that an employer was not liable on theories of negligent hiring, supervision, or retention regarding an employee who had already been granted criminal immunity under the state’s “castle doctrine” after fatally shooting a customer during a workplace confrontation.
• The court’s reasoning centered on a critical distinction: when an employee’s use of force is determined to be lawful and justified, there is no “underlying wrongful conduct” to which any independent negligent acts of the employer could relate.
• The decision can serve as a prompt for employers to evaluate their workplace violence prevention programs.

The court held that because the employee had already been granted criminal immunity under South Carolina’s Protection of Persons and Property Act (the state’s “castle doctrine” statute), the employer could not be held civilly liable.

Background

The case arose from a September 2020 incident at Green’s Grocery in Charleston. David Wilson, a customer, entered the store to buy a phone charger. A heated confrontation ensued between Wilson and Suhib Yousef, an employee and the nephew of the store’s owner. The dispute escalated, Wilson’s conduct placed Yousef in reasonable fear of imminent serious injury, and Yousef shot and killed Wilson.

Yousef was charged with murder, but after an immunity hearing, the circuit court found that Wilson’s actions gave Yousef the statutory right to use lethal force under the Protection of Persons and Property Act. The court dismissed the murder charge, and the state did not appeal.

The Civil Suit

Following the criminal case, Wilson’s estate filed a civil lawsuit against Green’s Grocery, LLC, and its owner, seeking to hold the employer liable on theories such as negligent hiring, supervision, or retention—separate from Yousef’s personal justification for using force. The circuit court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the unchallenged immunity order established that Yousef was not at fault and that the employer could not be held liable where the underlying act was lawful.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

On appeal, the supreme court affirmed. The court’s reasoning centered on a critical distinction: when an employee’s use of force is determined to be lawful and justified, there is no “underlying wrongful conduct” to which any independent negligent acts of the employer could relate.

The court acknowledged prior case law—Woodell by Allen v. Marion School District One and Greenville Memorial Auditorium v. Martin—in which employers were held not immune despite third-party criminal acts. In those cases, the plaintiffs’ claims were based on the employers’ own negligence, and the underlying third-party conduct was wrongful. The court distinguished Moore, explaining that Yousef’s conduct “was not criminal—nor was it wrongful in any respect.” Because there was no wrongful act at the foundation of the case, independent negligence claims against the employer could not attach.

As the court succinctly stated, “[t]his case, at its core, rises and falls with the justification for the shooting.”

Key Takeaways for Employers

The Moore v. Green’s Grocery decision breaks new ground at the intersection of employer liability and South Carolina’s self-defense statutes.

First, an employee’s grant of criminal immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act can have preclusive effects in subsequent civil litigation against the employer. Where a court has determined that the employee acted lawfully, a plaintiff faces a steep obstacle in seeking to hold the employer independently liable.

Second, the opinion does not give employers a blanket pass. The court carefully distinguished cases in which an employer’s own negligence—such as negligent hiring or failure to maintain safe premises—contributed to injury caused by a third party’s wrongful acts. Where the underlying act is unlawful, an employer’s independent negligence can still support liability.

Workplace Violence: The Practical Dimension

While Moore may offer legal comfort, it can also serve as a prompt for employers to think proactively about workplace violence. The castle doctrine shielded the employer here because the employee’s use of force was found lawful—but that outcome turned on specific facts, including an unchallenged immunity order. Murkier circumstances could yield a very different result.

Employers may want to use this decision as an occasion to evaluate workplace violence prevention programs. De-escalation training, clear use-of-force policies, and protocols for handling confrontational customers are critical. South Carolina employers that permit employees to carry firearms may want to develop policies that account for the interplay between the Protection of Persons and Property Act and potential employer liability.

Even a legally favorable outcome does not insulate a business from reputational harm, operational disruption, or the human toll of workplace violence. Prevention remains far more valuable than any after-the-fact legal defense.

Looking Ahead

Moore v. Green’s Grocery clarifies that the state’s castle doctrine immunity can extend beyond the individual who used force to shield the employer—but only where a court has affirmatively found the employee’s conduct justified. This ruling is a usefulcatalyst for reviewing workplace violence policies, training programs, and use-of-force protocols.

Ogletree Deakins’ South Carolina offices and Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Retail, South Carolina, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts