I just finished readig the appellants brief.
As a young girl I was often dropped at the hall by my parents or invited and picked up by other congregation members to go to meetings or out in service, coffee, social outings, etc. Often there was no pre-made plans, but everyone knew someone would take their kid out and bring them home. The degree of trust for that was as it is for close family and no one worried about child molesters anymore than they suspected child molestors in their own family.
At times, someone would invite me to go in their car group. At other times, even as an adult, I have been specifically assigned by the service group elder, to go in a car group or work with specific people, including alone with brothers.
So in my opinion, the crux of the case hinges on whether or not they can actually prove that an elder who knew of the child abuse history of Kendrick specifically assiged the girl to work in a group with him. If they cannot prove that, the defense could just as easily say that the parents and the girl and Kendric made their own arrrangements without any direction from the service group elder. As we all know, both of those scenarios were very commonplace depending upon the particular servant leading the group and how controlling they were.
I'm not hopeful for this case, because the WTBTS brought up some very important points of law in their brief. For one, the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that she was assigned by an elder to work with Kendrick in the first trial, and while I did not read that transcript, according to the WTBTS's brief it was not even brought up in that first trial or it was not a key argument in their case. You are not allowed to bring up new arguments or introduce new evidence in an appeal. So if they did not prove she was specifically assigned to work with a child molester in the first trial, WTBTS may win on that point
I also thought WTBTS had a good legal point about not being held retroactively to a "duty to report" law that did not exist at the time of the abuse. Even if there was a "duty to report" law in effect at the time, the duty to report is to legal authorities, not to the public, neighbours and fellow church goers. Even the legal authorites still struggle with the duty versus legality of warning neighbours of child molestors at this time and do not always do so, althought that situation is improving somewhat in Canada.
Since appeals have to be based upon points of law that were not followed or interpreted correctly, WTBTS also had an interesting point about the punitive damages being excessive and not allowable by law, because the jurors or judge openly admittted that they were for other unknown victims who may have been harmed.
It will be very interesting to see the outcome of this case. I think if the appeal is heard by a judge only and not allowed to be swayed by the emotional response of a jury sympathetic to victims, that the WTBTS may win purely on points of law.