The Rowland v. Christian case was used to arrive at the Conti decision... But should there have been a legal duty to prevent harm?

defender of truth

The factors of the Rowland v. Christian case were applied to arrive at the latest Conti ruling, according to an article entitled 'In Childhood Sexual Abuse Case, California Appellate Court Finds Church has No Duty to Prevent Its Members from Harming Each Other':

"The sole basis for the punitive damages claim was the contention that the defendants failed to fulfill their duty of warning members of the congregation that the Witness had molested a child.
On appeal, the reviewing court found that the alleged duty to warn could not be justified on the basis of a special relationship because there is “no authority for any such broad duty on the part of a church to prevent its members from harming each other.” The court also applied the factors of Rowland v. Christian to determine whether a duty existed..."
www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/in-childhood-sexual-abuse-case-californ-19456/
......

Now take a look at this:
" California Civil Code section 1714 imposes a general duty of ordinary care, which by default requires all persons to take reasonable measures to prevent harm to others.

In the 1968 case of Rowland v. Christian, the court held that judicial exceptions to this general duty of care should only be created if clearly justified based on the following public-policy factors:

*.the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;

*.the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;

*.the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;

*.the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;

*.the policy of preventing future harm;

*.the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;

*.and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. "
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

So, do you think that the Watchtower should have been found to legally have a duty of care, bearing in mind the above-quoted factors?
Or do you think that the appellate court decision was correct?

StarTrekAngel

I think that it was wrong for the court to state that duty to warn would put too much burden on the church. They went as far as saying that it would burden them with having to warn every time they have a reasonable evidence that someone could be a child abuser. What I believe they fail to see is that this is a confirmed pedophile. No one, not even CPS would prosecute someone whom they "feel" might by a pedophile. If they go the route of not dealing with the matter internally, then 1st amendment would come to the table. There is no winning with these people. I think the only upper hand is in bad PR. As much and as often as possible, and then some more.

karter

Does a school have a responsibility to protect students from child molesters? The answer is obvious so to does anyone that knows a child or anyone else is in danger.if a school let Kendrick around its pupils knowing of his past they would be held responsible if he harmed a child .....so what makes the wts any different. Karter.

Crazyguy

To use that old of a court case, really. I can't believe there not a newer ruling. The idea that a organization is not responsible for protecting people especially if the member is in a power position. This ruling is irrepressible. Hopefully Conti appeals so this obsurd ruling is struck down.

DATA-DOG

Hopefully a new jury will decide that the WTBTS is responsible for what occurs on "church" grounds or during required activities.

So by extension, is Jeehoobie not responsible for what happens?

How long will the public allow kids to get "Sanduskied??"

The truly immoral behavior of the WTBTS is incredible. All of this to save face.

DD

SonoftheTrinity

I hope it goes to the Supreme Court and the Governing Body gets subpoenaed just to humiliate them.

Fisherman

deleted