ABSTRACT
Recent years have witnessed the proliferation of allegations concerning sexual abuse by clergymembers, along with its concealment by institutional leaders, in a variety of religious communities in the US. Many victim-survivors report being doubly injured when they have attempted to obtain redress from religious institutions for the harms they have suffered. Increasingly, they have turned to tort law as a venue for obtaining compensation and effecting changes in policy. Of the numerous causes of action victim-survivors have invoked against religious institutions, especially the Roman Catholic Church, this Article focuses on respondeat superior vicarious liability. It identifies and assesses four ways courts have evaluated respondeat superior claims against the institutions where accused clergymembers have worked. One approach has been categorically to dismiss vicarious liability claims related to clergy sexual abuse; another has been to allow such claims only when an abuser’s actions can be cognized as mistaken attempts to perform authorized job responsibilities. In a third approach, courts have considered whether sexual abuse is a characteristic risk of religious ministry. The approach that best achieves the rationales for vicarious liability and best balances the interests of all parties is the fourth, a fact-intensive inquiry that investigates what courts have called the ‘causal nexus’ or ‘close connection’ between the specific circumstances of a tort and the authority with which an employer has clothed an alleged offender.
Patrick Hornbeck, Respondeat Superior Vicarious Liability for Clergy Sexual Abuse: Four Approaches 2020) 68 Buffalo Law Review 975.
First posted 2020-09-17 04:26:55
Leave a Reply