Scratchme:
I am sorry but you are
actually wrong. Below is 3 cases including more recent cases that a
fiduciary duty was not extended. Again I never said it was right but
this is what the court has found.
Lewis v Bellows
Falls Congregation 114-CV-205-JGM. (2015)
Holdings: The
District Court, J.
Garvan Murtha,
J., held that:
1 alleged
conduct by church did not create fiduciary relationship between
church and congregant;
2 church
allegedly had duty to provide reasonable supervision of its minister;
3 no
special relationship existed between the church and its minister, as
required to give rise to church's duty to control minister;
4 church
had no duty to protect congregant; and
5 church
had no separate duty to warn its congregants, distinct from a duty to
protect.
Anderson v
Watchtower M2004-01066-COA-R9-CV. (2005)
Barbara Anderson et
al. Claimed that Moses v Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310 (Colo.
1993) applied to their case. The Appeals court found that the cited
case of Moses: “Recognized that the relationship between a
clergyman and parishioner was normally one involving rust and
reliance, but further held that in order to be liable to breach a
fiduciary duty, the superior party must ‘assume a duty to act in
the dependent party’s best interest,’” And footnote 23 goes on
“Cases examining a breach of fiduciary durty claim in the contest
of a religiously-based relationship have made it clear that the
clergy-parishioner relationship alone is not sufficient to establish
a fiduciary duty. … (declining to find a per se fiduciary
relationship between all clergy and their congregants and requiring
“something more” to demonstrate a justifiable trust on one side
and resulting superiority and influence on the other).”
Brian R v Watchtower
CUM-98-531 (1999)
The appeals court
ruled:
There
does not exist a general obligation to protect others from harm not
created by the actor. “The fact that the actor realizes or should
realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or
protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such
action.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §
314 (1965).
In other words, the mere fact that one individual knows that a third
party is or could be dangerous to others does not make that
individual responsible for controlling the third party or protecting
others from the danger.5
Even
with the emergence of expanded liability for nonfeasance, that
principle has remained clear—in instances of “nonfeasance rather
than misfeasance, and absent a special relationship, the law imposes
no duty to act affirmatively to protect someone from danger unless
the dangerous situation was created by the defendant.” Jackson
v. Tedd–Lait Post No. 75, 1999
ME 26, ¶ 8, 723 A.2d 1220, 1221.
Only when there is a “special relationship,” may the actor be
found to have a common law duty to prevent harm to another caused by
a third party.7 There
is simply “no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as
to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless ... a
special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives
to the other a right to protection.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF
TORTS §
315(b) (1965).8
We
have described the salient elements of a fiduciary relationship as:
(1) “the actual placing of trust and confidence in fact by one
party in another,” and (2) “a great disparity of position and
influence between the parties” at issue. Morris
v. Resolution Trust Corp., 622
A.2d 708, 712 (Me.1993).
A fiduciary relationship has been found to exist in several
categories of relationship, including business
partners, see Rosenthal
v. Rosenthal, 543
A.2d 348, 352 (Me.1988),
families engaged in financial transactions, see Estate
of Campbell, 1997
ME 212, ¶ 9, 704 A.2d 329, 331–32, and
corporate relationships, see Moore
v. Maine Indus. Servs., Inc., 645
A.2d 626, 628 (Me.1994); Webber
v. Webber Oil Co., 495
A.2d 1215, 1224–25 (Me.1985).
We
have noted, however, that a “general allegation of a confidential
relationship is not a sufficient basis for establishing the existence
of one.” Ruebsamen
v. Maddocks, 340
A.2d 31, 35 (Me.1975).
As with any duty, its existence must be informed by “the hand of
history, our ideals of morals and justice, the convenience of
administration of the rule, and our social ideas as to where the loss
should fall.” Trusiani, 538
A.2d at 261.
Although a fiduciary duty may be based on “moral, social, domestic,
or [ ] merely personal [duties],” Ruebsamen, 340
A.2d at 34, it
does not arise merely because of the existence of kinship,
friendship, business relationships, or organizational relationships.
A fiduciary duty will be found to exist, as a matter of law, only in
circumstances where the law will recognize both the disparate
positions of the parties and a reasonable basis for the placement of
trust and confidence in the superior party in the context of specific
events at issue.10 A
court, therefore, must have before it specific facts regarding the
nature of the relationship that is alleged to have given rise to a
fiduciary duty in order to determine whether a duty may exist at law.
Actually you are wrong, wrong, wrong again. And if I can add, you're also full of shit because if you have all this information then you do not have "an honest question" about the child abuse situation with the WT, which is the bullshit that you started this thread with. You just want to start something, as you yourself have proven here. You're just another classic case of passive/aggressive trolling.
You are citing the law, not the cases that were settled in which it was determined that the WT was in fact in a fiduciary relationship with the defendants. That may not have been the case in the cases that you cite, which I do not know, but it was not the case in any of the following cases that (a) were settled and (b) and were determined that the WT did in fact had a fiduciary responsibility with their victims.
Here are the cases:
Amy vs. Jehovah's Witnesses
Bradley et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Charissa et al Coordinated Cases vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Churchfield vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Daniel Wes et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Grafmyer vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Julianne Wimberlu Gutierrez et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Kaleena et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Ken L vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Morley at al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Tabitha H vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Tim W vs Jehovah's Witnesses
So what is good for you is good for me too. I prove my case the same way you do, not that you need any proof because you obviously aren't here wanting information or answer to a question.
One more thing before I send you to hell: Even if what you state is the case in every single case, which is not (May I also point that I have more cases proving my point than you proving yours?) What I posted in my original was "conveniently" not addressed. Don't think for a second that the rest of what I mentioned gets cancelled in any way shape or form. So here it is again, see if any of this answers your "innocent honest question":
First:
currently there are plenty of laws that protect children. Every state
has specific laws and there are plenty of federal laws that protect all
kinds of harm that the children may be. There's no need to create more
laws.
Second: not sure where you get that we are more interested
in attacking the WT, or that we have no interest in legislation and law.
Since the laws already exist, we hold the WT responsible for their
disgusting position about child abuse, and for the lack of care for
children. Don't expect people to be nice about it if we know that they
protect pedophiles and have to be sued for them to admit that they are
doing that.
Third: Covering for pedophiles is not the only immoral
act that the WT commits against children. I for once can tell you that I
grew up going to the KH hearing about fornication, orgies, adultery,
bestiality, Babylon the Great having sex with a dragon, beheadings,
genocide, rape, slavery, incestuous relationships, children getting
killed, children getting sold into slavery, children getting murdered
for making fun of a person's lack of hair, etc. You know very well that
all kinds of subjects are openly talked about in KHs with children
present. JW kids get exposed to all kinds of violent events, sexually
inappropriate subjects and all kinds of things that are not suitable for
them. That happens every week in every KH. The WT shows no regard for
children at all. If that doesn't give you a clue about the WT not caring
about the well being of children, I don't know what does.
Fourth:
What do you think that the events and cases that are currently being
seen in court are doing? They are holding them responsible.
Fifth:
It is extremely naive to expect that written laws are going to stop
pedophiles and child abusers from causing harm to children. It's not a
matter of laws or legislation. JWs have to stop blindly accepting
anything and everything that the WT tells them; that's the bottom line.
You cannot legislate attitude, you cannot legislate indoctrination, you
cannot legislate brainwashing and blind devotion. It really boils down
to parents blindly trusting that the WT is acting in their best interest
when they are not. There's no law that can enforce people to act
appropriately. proof of that is that those laws actually exist and
people, including the WT, just don't follow them.
Now you and your trolling can go to hell.
