Allen v. Zion Baptist Church
328 Ga. App. 208
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In Oct. 2010, 21-year-old volunteer applicant Joshua Humphrey, who had recently begun attending Zion Baptist Church, gained unsupervised access to youth after submitting a volunteer application but before references or a background check were completed.
- Humphrey sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy shortly after a church fall festival; the assault occurred off church property but immediately after contact initiated at the church.
- One of Humphrey’s submitted references was later shown to be forged; the purported refuser (Brandy Rowland) testified she would not have recommended him and related prior suspicious conduct by Humphrey toward a young child.
- Zion’s youth pastor had asked Humphrey to assist at a youth game night; Humphrey was left alone with youth during that event.
- The Allens sued Zion and Humphrey for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, failure to warn/intervene, ordinary negligence, and related claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for Zion, finding no evidence Zion knew or should have known of Humphrey’s propensity, and denied sanctions for alleged spoliation of personnel files.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it found triable issues on negligent hiring/retention/supervision and related negligence claims, but affirmed the trial court’s denial of spoliation sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Humphrey was acting as a volunteer/servant such that Zion owed a duty | Humphrey was permitted to assist youth events and had unsupervised contact—his status created a duty | Zion emphasized volunteer status and distance of assault from church property | Triable issue: circumstances (on-site contact, recruitment, unsupervised duties, and immediate post-event contact) make his acts not "wholly unrelated" to volunteer role |
| Negligent hiring/retention/supervision — was Zion negligent in screening and supervision? | Zion failed to contact references or complete background check before allowing unsupervised youth contact; a contacted reference would have alerted Zion to predatory behavior | Zion argued it had no actual or constructive notice of propensity and need not verify every application detail | Held: jury question exists; failure to check references before unsupervised contact could be unreasonable in this sensitive context |
| Causation — could Zion’s negligence be the proximate cause of the assault? | Hiring/retention failures foreseeably permitted the attack; causation is generally a jury issue | Zion argued the criminal act was unforeseeable and too remote | Held: causation is for the jury here; not plainly unforeseeable as a matter of law |
| Spoliation — did Zion’s destruction of personnel files require sanctions or preclude summary judgment? | Files (including an admin assistant’s) were destroyed after suit was filed or during discovery and could have been material | Zion argued destroyed materials were cumulative or not tied to plaintiffs’ claims; trial court found no meaningful link or bad faith | Held: trial court did not abuse discretion; no spoliation sanctions because plaintiffs could depose the assistant and show no significant link to undermining claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Gwinnett Hosp. System, 263 Ga. App. 554 (summary judgment standard)
- Ethridge v. Davis, 243 Ga. App. 11 (de novo review / construe evidence for nonmovant)
- Piney Grove Baptist Church v. Goss, 255 Ga. App. 380 (negligent hiring/retention principles applied to churches)
- Munroe v. Universal Health Svcs., 277 Ga. 861 (employer liability requires employer knew or should have known tendencies relevant to harm)
- Drury v. Harris Ventures, 302 Ga. App. 545 (employer not required to independently verify every application item)
- Underberg v. Southern Alarm, 284 Ga. App. 108 (causation and foreseeability in negligent hiring/retention)
- Bull Street Church of Christ v. Jensen, 233 Ga. App. 96 (duty to supervise children and jury verdict on negligent supervision)
- Harvey Freeman & Sons v. Stanley, 259 Ga. 233 (scope-of-employment principles and when employer may be liable)