Wife beating during 20 years and fiduciary duty

chasson

Wife, a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, sued Watchtower Society and church elders alleging that the church and the individual defendants failed to render assistance to her when she was consistently and repeatedly beaten by her husband over a period of 20 years; actions for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for breach of fiduciary duty time barred; limitation periods not tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment; church teaching that members were not to resort to lawsuits did not postpone the running of the limitations periods until plaintiff’s expulsion from the church; however, the claim for breach of implied contract to protect plaintiff so long as she was obedient to the church was timely because the alleged breach could be considered to have occurred on the date of plaintiff’s expulsion from the church; but the claim for breach of implied contract was barred by the First Amendment Case # 801 (10/00) (Conn. Super. Ct.) (for collateral proceeding in the same case, see index entry in the next paragraph)

Wife, a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, sued Watchtower Society and church elders alleging that the church and the individual defendants failed to render assistance to her when she was consistently and repeatedly abused by her husband for nearly 20 years, but counseled her to continue to endure in the marriage. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant elders voiced derogatory remarks about her until her “disfellowship” in April, 1996. Summary judgment granted to defendants on plaintiff’s actions for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, limitation period of three years barred consideration of allegations of events occurring prior to March, 1995. Church teaching that members were not to resort to lawsuits did not postpone the running of the limitations periods until plaintiff’s expulsion from the church. As to alleged events that occurred within the three year limitations period, derogatory remarks about and verbal mistreatment of plaintiff in the course of the disfellowship proceedings were not “extreme and outrageous.” Conduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hurt feelings is insufficient to form the basis for an action based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress. Action for negligent infliction of emotional distress was in effect a claim for clergy malpractice barred by the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment Case # 1509 (11/03) (Conn. App. Ct.) (collateral proceedinging in same indexed in the precding paragraph)

From http://www.paradigmpub.com/docs.asp?case=clergymalpractice

Lady Lee

hmmmmmm

very Interesting

I hope wife wins BIG

parakeet

Maybe I'm not getting all the legal jargon, but doesn't it mean she lost?

***Summary judgment granted to defendants on plaintiff’s actions for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.***
***Conduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hurt feelings is insufficient to form the basis for an action based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress.***

LDH

Parakeet,

I got that too. Apparently, it's ok to counsel someone to stay in a marriage for 20 years where they're being abused. Note words :it was not outrageous.

parakeet

***Apparently, it's ok to counsel someone to stay in a marriage for 20 years where they're being abused. Note words :it was not outrageous.***

LDH,
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the courts were saying it's ok for the JWs to counsel someone to stay in an abusive relationship. They were saying it's the org's right to give advice, even if it's bad advice, and it was up to the woman whether or not to take the bad advice. The courts assume adult JWs are capable of making rational decisions about their lives. And legally, I guess they have to make that assumption; otherwise, the courts would just end up being another "parent" to JWs who won't take responsibility for their decisions.

Justitia Themis

As to alleged events that occurred within the three year limitations period, derogatory remarks about and verbal mistreatment of plaintiff in the course of the disfellowship proceedings were not “extreme and outrageous.” Conduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hurt feelings is insufficient to form the basis for an action based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Simple answer...she lost.

LDH: The court is not saying the abuse was not outrageous. They were commenting only on the above underlined situations. Events prior to 1995 were barred from consideration.

parakeet

***Conduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hurt feelings is insufficient to form the basis for an action based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress.***
It's the "sticks-and-stones" defense.

Warlock

So, stay in the marriage and get beat, or leave and get d.f.ed? What a choice.

Warlock

LDH

So, stay in the marriage and get beat, or leave and get d.f.ed? What a choice.

exactly.....

Shining One

Here is an important point. If she had also brought charges of failing to report abuse of children (that the elders knew about) the congregation and the elders personally could be held liable. Most states have this law in place. It is the legal obligation of churches, childcare, etc. to report suspected child abuse.
Rex

Wife beating during 20 years and fiduciary duty

Share this