In that case, Watchtower was vicariously liable for the elders' omissions, not for the abuser's actions, and vicarious liability wasn't a contentious issue at all.
Corney
JoinedPosts by Corney
-
21
Vicarious Liability: Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from religious organisation following sexual assault
by yalbmert99 inhttps://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d0a1ca63-2027-4702-9f6d-3c3da5fd9c5f.
-
-
-
40
Congregation in PA sues over mandatory reporting
by Corney inivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
-
-
Corney
What federal law?
-
40
Congregation in PA sues over mandatory reporting
by Corney inivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
-
-
Corney
Also, there is no federal law on clergy privilege, it's a state matter.
-
21
Vicarious Liability: Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from religious organisation following sexual assault
by yalbmert99 inhttps://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d0a1ca63-2027-4702-9f6d-3c3da5fd9c5f.
-
-
Corney
Conti case had nothing to do with vicarious liability. I'm not sure the claim that elders in the Illinois case directed the girl and her mother to stay silent is supported by facts. As to the UK case, the connection between the abuser's position and the crime he committed is actually pretty weak and distant so it is for the Supreme Court now to decide whether it is sufficient enough to establish liability. -
40
Congregation in PA sues over mandatory reporting
by Corney inivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
-
-
Corney
There is a widespread misunderstanding of this issue. In Pennsylvania, just like in Montana, Illinois and many other jurisdictions, JW elders are mandatory reporters BECAUSE, not despite, they are considered to be clergymen. In these jurisdictions ordinary people have no duty to report - only certain professionals, including members of clergy, have that duty. And their "we don't have clergy class" rhetoric is simply immaterial and irrelevant, and it's a kind of urban legend that courts use it against the org.
-
21
Vicarious Liability: Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from religious organisation following sexual assault
by yalbmert99 inhttps://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d0a1ca63-2027-4702-9f6d-3c3da5fd9c5f.
-
-
Corney
Their hierarchical structure is of no relevance here because Watch Tower PA didn't deny its responsibility for the congregation and "has agreed that it will satisfy any judgment against" it. The real issue at question was what relationship, if any, exists between the abuser's position as an elder and the rape, that "did not occur while Mark Sewell was performing any religious duty," but "when the two couples were choosing to be together on an essentially social occasion... There is, therefore, at least an argument that by the time of the rape Mark Sewell’s status as an elder had somewhat faded into the background"
-
21
Vicarious Liability: Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from religious organisation following sexual assault
by yalbmert99 inhttps://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d0a1ca63-2027-4702-9f6d-3c3da5fd9c5f.
-
-
Corney
On 30 March, a panel of three Supreme Court Justices agreed to hear the case Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB. In that case, the congregation was found vicariously liable for Mark Sewell, its elder, raping a 29-year-old female congregant.
This appears to be the first case of applying a special rule for child sexual abuse to abuse of an adult. Commenting on the Court of Appeal judgment, Prof. Giliker noted that it "raises more questions than it answers" and "leaves the law in need of clarification and facing the prospect of yet another trip to the Supreme Court."
As to Mark Sewell, he was sentenced to 14 years, and claims brought by his two (then-)child victims have been settled. The plaintiff in the present case proposed to settle for £25,000, which was denied by the org. As the trial court judge noted, "the Defendants could reasonably conclude that they had stronger arguments in her case... [which] was certainly not so weak that the decision to litigate it... was itself unreasonable." Anyway, if they lost this time, their overall litigation costs will likely exceed hundreds of thousands GBP.
The case will be heard not earlier than this October.
-
40
Congregation in PA sues over mandatory reporting
by Corney inivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
-
-
Corney
The case was dismissed today on jurisdictional grounds:
The record does not establish that DHS opposes, has sued, or threatened to sue Ivy Hill. Similar to Ruszin, in which the Court held the petitioner did not have an “antagonistic claim indicating imminent [and] inevitable litigation,” nothing of record here establishes or otherwise indicates imminent and inevitable litigation between DHS and Ivy Hill. Cf. Ruszin, 675 A.2d at 371. Indeed, as discussed in further detail below, DHS cannot even initiate litigation regarding the CPSL. Therefore, we agree with DHS that we may decline to exercise our jurisdiction under the DJA and dismiss Ivy Hill’s petition for review. See Brouillette, 213 A.3d at 357. We also agree with DHS’s second argument that the requested declaratory relief would not terminate the controversy.
-
35
Jehovah Witnesses lost in Court. Disfellowshipped Sister Reinstated by Court Order?
by pistolpete inimagine the "faithful" jws who are now having to talk to this person by court order or face the consequences----legally.. exjws are spreading the news and now some exjws who have been disfellowshipped for years are starting to research to see if this is an option in their country.
here are the articles, you need to translate in google.
https://www.nrk.no/norge/gry-nygard-ble-ekskludert-fra-jehovas-vitner-_-vant-i-lagmannsretten-1.15570621.
-
-
-
35
Jehovah Witnesses lost in Court. Disfellowshipped Sister Reinstated by Court Order?
by pistolpete inimagine the "faithful" jws who are now having to talk to this person by court order or face the consequences----legally.. exjws are spreading the news and now some exjws who have been disfellowshipped for years are starting to research to see if this is an option in their country.
here are the articles, you need to translate in google.
https://www.nrk.no/norge/gry-nygard-ble-ekskludert-fra-jehovas-vitner-_-vant-i-lagmannsretten-1.15570621.
-
-
Corney
https://www.domstol.no/no/hoyesterett/avgjorelser/2022/hoyesterett---sivil/HR-2022-883-A/
In an unanimous judgment, a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled for the congregation and found that:
first, disfellowshipping decisions are justiciable and reviewable by courts in principle, since they have significant consequences for the person's welfare;
second, the art. 10 of the Religious Community Act of 1969, that "very specifically Norwegian law" the appellate court relied on, is inapplicable in this case;
third, there is no reason to invalidate the decision in question because the basic guarantees for legal security (due process) were met, and it wasn't based on a manifestly incorrect fact;
fourth, the plaintiff shall be exempted from paying legal costs of the congregation due to "the welfare significance of the case for [plaintiff] and the uneven balance of power between her as an individual member and Jehovah's Witnesses."
Decisions to exclude Jehovah's Witnesses are not overturned
Jehovah's Witnesses - Ski congregation (lawyer René Stub-Christiansen) (Legal assistant: lawyer Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal) against A (lawyer Per Danielsen)
One woman was excluded from Jehovah's Witnesses because, in the congregation's view, she had exhibited “porneia,” a biblical term for sexual immorality.
Freedom of religion or assembly, enshrined in the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), gives religious communities a large degree of independence, including deciding who should be members. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion decision had not completely escaped judicial review. Thus, as Jehovah's Witnesses demanded, the case was not dismissed by the courts. It was emphasized that the decision had very great personal consequences for the woman. Jehovah's Witnesses follow a practice that involves a member of the congregation, including the immediate family, avoiding contact with the excluded person.
Nevertheless, it follows from the freedom of religion that a decision made by a religious community on religious grounds cannot be set aside by the courts solely on the basis that it is highly unreasonable. The judicial review must be limited to whether the basic requirements for due process were met, and whether the decision was based on a materially incorrect fact. After a specific review, the Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion decision could not be set aside on any of these grounds. The decision clarifies the courts' right to review decisions in a religious community.
Read the decision in its entirety
Supreme Court judgment 3 May 2022, HR-2022-883-A, (case no. 21-142136SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.