831 S.E.2d 460
Va.2019Background
- Plaintiff A.H., abused by church deacon Don Billups from 2006–2010 (ages 4–8), sued Billups, his wife, the local Gospel Tabernacle Church of God in Christ, and the national COGIC; Billups was later criminally convicted of multiple sex crimes against minors.
- A.H. alleged the church defendants knew of a prior 2003 abuse allegation against Billups, failed to act or warn, continued to place him in youth roles (deacon, youth leader, drill-team coach), and thus exposed A.H. to foreseeable risk.
- The circuit court sustained demurrers and dismissed A.H.’s amended complaint (with prejudice) as to the church defendants; A.H. appealed only the claims against the church defendants.
- A.H pleaded (among other theories) negligence based on a special custodial relationship, negligent hiring/retention/supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior (vicarious liability), negligence per se (failure to report), and punitive damages.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia (majority) accepted the complaint facts as true for demurrer review and: reversed dismissal as to negligence grounded on a special custodial relationship and respondeat superior; affirmed dismissal as to negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision (as a standalone tort), negligence per se, standalone negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the church owe a direct duty to protect A.H. (special custodial relationship)? | Church voluntarily took custody/control of children via youth/drill-team activities and thus owed a duty to protect A.H. from Billups after learning of prior allegations. | No special custodial relationship existed, or if it did, the facts do not show foreseeability sufficient to impose a duty. | Reversed: Allegations sufficed at pleading stage to state negligence based on a special custodial relationship between A.H. and church defendants. |
| Is the church vicariously liable (respondeat superior) for Billups’s sexual abuse? | Billups was an employee/agent; abuse occurred in execution of duties as youth leader/coach—pleads scope of employment. | The abuse was outside scope of employment; employer not liable for independent criminal acts. | Reversed: Plaintiff is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that Billups acted within scope; allegations survive demurrer. |
| Do negligent hiring, retention, or supervision claims survive demurrer? | Church knew or should have known of Billups’s propensities and negligently hired/retained/supervised him. | Prior allegation was vague; no facts show knowledge at hiring or that retention required termination; Virginia does not recognize negligent supervision as a standalone tort. | Affirmed: negligent hiring and negligent retention not pleaded with required specificity; negligent supervision not recognized as independent cause of action. |
| Are punitive damages available against the church? | Church’s inaction and continued placement of Billups amounts to ratification/wanton misconduct warranting punitive damages. | Church did not participate in, authorize, or ratify the criminal acts; punitive damages require clear factual allegations of malice or ratification. | Affirmed: pleadings lack sufficient factual specificity to support punitive damages against church defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Irish Fleet, 296 Va. 129 (Va. 2018) (explains limited circumstances creating duty to protect/warn against third‑party criminal acts)
- Burns v. Gagnon, 283 Va. 657 (Va. 2012) (assumed duty and special‑relationship principles analyzed)
- A.H. v. Rockingham Publ’g Co., 255 Va. 216 (Va. 1998) (discusses employer duty to protect employees from third‑party intentional criminal acts)
- Parker v. Carilion Clinic, 296 Va. 319 (Va. 2018) (rebuttable presumption that employee acted within scope when employment alleged; duty and scope analysis)
- Delk v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 259 Va. 125 (Va. 2000) (recognizes special custodial relationship duty where vulnerable person placed in custodian’s charge)
- Southeast Apts. Mgmt., Inc. v. Jackman, 257 Va. 256 (Va. 1999) (describes negligent hiring and retention elements)
- Kellermann v. McDonough, 278 Va. 478 (Va. 2010) (addresses assumed duties and limits of special‑relationship doctrine)
- Egan v. Butler, 290 Va. 62 (Va. 2015) (punitive damages not available against employer absent participation, authorization, or ratification)