Hi Mad Apostate,
Anyone that has any legal background whatsoever knows that it only takes the sligh[t]est change in factual circumstances to totally change a legal decision.
Yeah I agree with you on that. Oh thanks for the RCB v. SC (1996) case by the way. In that particular case you might notice this quotation from the case, when Jane, unsuccessfully, was trying to use another case to show "negligent hiring" against the Roman Catholic Bishop.
http://vcsun.org/~djordan/omega.htmJane claims the church was negligent in failing to discover Omemaga‘‘s unfitness prior to hiring him, relying on Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th 828 (Evan F.) In Evan F., 13-year-old Evan was molested in 1985 by Murphy, the pastor of the local.Methodist congregation. Ten years before, Murphy had agreed with the larger church [Roman Catholic Bishop v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1556, page 1566]conference to "step down" after several adolescent males complained he molested them. (Id. at p. 832.) After working as a counselor at a secular high school, Murphy applied and was hired by the local.congregation in 1977 to work as its youth director. In 1982 he applied for the position of pastor of the same congregation.
At the time of his selection as pastor, the larger church conference not only knew of the 1970 molestations, but also that Murphy had recently been fired by the high school for "inappropriate behavior with an adolescent male." (Evan F., supra, 8 Cal.App.4that p. 832.) The conference further knew Murphy wanted reinstatement to the ministry only if he were appointed to the particular local congregation. The local congregation knew, at the very least, that there was "some difficulty" with Murphy’’s reinstatement. (Id. at p. 833.)
On appeal, the court reversed a grant of summary judgment, concluding Evan could state a cause of action against the local congregation for negligent hiring for its failure to investigate or make any inquiry regarding Murphy’s fitness to serve as pastor. Both the local congregation and the larger church conference were named defendants and the conference participated in Murphy’’s selection; however, the opinion is unclear whether Evan was also allowed to state a cause of action against the conference. (Evan F., supra, 8 Cal.App.4that p. 843.)7 Unlike in Evan F. where facts encompassed the particular risk of harm if Murphy were employed, here there were no facts showing an undue risk of harm that Omemaga would commit criminal child sexual abuse if he were employed by the church. Although she complains the church should have authenticated Omemaga‘‘s credentials and documents from the Philippines, Jane has failed to show authentication would have revealed any facts relating to risk of criminal sexual assault.8
As seen in the above quote, Evans, unlike Jane, did show "negligent hiring" against the local congregation because the congregation knew of about defendant's past molestation.
My understanding, is that the "theory of negligent hiring" can be used to protect three groups or classes of people.
1 - Co-workers,
2- Customers and
3 The public at large.
The one case I remember about protecting the public at large was the Tallahassee Furniture Store Co. v. Harrison 583 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) rev. denied 595 So. 2nd 558 (Fla. 1992). It was a classic. Wasn’t Mad Apostate. An employee, who as a furniture store’s delivery guy went into a person home to deliver furniture for the company. Then 3 months later, as a past employee, he goes back and robs, beats up & stabs the person who he previously delivered the furniture too. And the Court using the negligent hiring theory found the company he use to work for "liable" because they had a duty to protect the public from their employee when they did the hiring of him. And Company of course didn’t check out his dangerous criminal history before sending him out to deliver furniture in the public. Cool eh. The plaintiff won a lot of money.
Oh, did you notice paragraphs 17 and 27 in the "WRIT OF SUMMONS, GENERAL ALLEGATIONS in Berry Case? Here I will present them here for you:
17. At all times relevant, Defendant Paul Berry was Plaintiff Holly Berry's step-father and Plaintiff Heather Berry's father], and one of Jehovah's Witnesses, a publisher and ministerial servant of the Defendant Wilton Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Wilton, New Hampshire. Defendant Paul Berry is a convicted felon and has a history of sexual and physical abuse of children under his care including, but not limited to, his biological children and step children."27. Despite knowing of his abuse of Berry's children, Holly Berry and Heather Berry, the Wilton Congregation gave Berry the title of ministerial servant in the Wilton Congregation, rather than investigating and taking proper remedial action against Berry and taking reasonable steps to protect children of the Congregation, including the Plaintiffs. As a direct result of the failure to report the child abuse by Berry of Plaintiffs, the sexual abuse continued."
If I recall you did say Ministerial Servants such as Defendant Berry are “officials” of the Watchtower didn’t you? The WRIT also shows how the WTS was warned about Defendant Berry's abuse before Defendant Berry was assigned a Ministerial Servant.
Does it look like the WTS, assigned Defendant Berry as an MS or official of the Watchtower while at the same time they knew or should have known about his abuse through the mother’s complaints?.
Seems to me all of the congregation’s children including Berry’s own had an “occasion” to be with Defendant (and Ministerial Servant) Berry at the Kingdom Hall and other functions. Negligent hiring theory does require “casual contact” between the employee and the victim and the fact of employment. I don’t think it will matter what child got abused including his own as long as the child was in the congregation. You can even see how loose the definition of “casual connection” is when you see the Florida Furniture Company Case for negligent hiring theory.
Seems to me Defendant Berry continued the abuse after the appointment. Yes the abused children were his own children. But they, the children, also attended the hall where they were parishioners and he an “official” in causal contact with them.
Do you think if WTS had knowledge of Defendant Berry's past abuse, the WTS had a “common law duty” under negligent hiring theory to protect any co-workers, customers and the public at general (which could include all children) from Defendant Berry once and after they hired/assigned/appointed Mr. Berry as an "MS" or "official"?
Remember Negligent hiring theory is not Negligent Supervision theory. There does not appear to be any need to show or prove a "FD" relationship either.
Remember Berry will also not be arguing about doctrine matters or looking into how the church hires because the church (ie. WTS) already knew through the mother telling the elders, he was abusing children - just like the Evan’s case.
Remember the standard of care for negligent hiring theory is the New Hampshire reporting abuse statute and nothing more - no church doctrine to search through.
Remember all Ms. Berry has to show as a plaintiff is that if the WTS had reported the past abuse to the authorities when they hired Defendant Berry as a Ministerial Servant it would have prevented subsequent abuse. Once Ms. Berry does that simple task I think we have negligence per se.
Am I getting close to the same planet yet?
Give me your input.
Hawk
