832 F. Supp. 2d 1282
W.D. Wash.2011Background
- Six adult plaintiffs allege sexual abuse by scout leaders within the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and claim BSA knew of a predatory problem since 1910 via an internal Ineligible Volunteer Files (IV Files) system.
- The IV Files logged names and suspected activity of expelled or rejected leaders; thousands of files were destroyed in the 1970s, leaving about 6,000 surviving, 1,900 of which are public domain.
- Plaintiffs allege BSA failed to warn the public, failed to disclose the IV Files’ existence, and concealed knowledge that could have prevented abuse or guided protective measures.
- Plaintiffs assert multiple claims: negligence and breach of fiduciary duty; willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct; intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); SECA (RCW 9.68A); estoppel and fraudulent concealment; and civil conspiracy.
- Two related actions were consolidated for pretrial matters; BSA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on several grounds, including duty, independent torts, SECA, estoppel, and intracorporate conspiracy.
- The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, focusing on plausibility and not converting to summary judgment, and granted the motions with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does BSA owe a negligence duty to protect plaintiffs from scout leader crimes? | Plaintiffs assert a special relationship or protective duty exists. | BSA did not have a duty vis-a-vis plaintiffs or scouts to control third parties. | Negligence claim dismissed; no duty found. |
| Did BSA have a special relationship with scout leaders that imposes a duty to control their conduct? | BSA's custodial/ supervisory roles created a duty to supervise leaders. | No definite, established, continuing relationship with leaders; no control authority over day-to-day actions. | No special relationship found; negligence claim upheld as dismissed. |
| Did BSA have a special relationship with the plaintiffs themselves that creates a duty to protect from third-party harm? | Enrollment and entrustment placed plaintiffs under BSA's care and safety. | Plaintiffs were not shown to be in BSA’s custody or care at the time of abuse. | No special relationship with plaintiffs; no duty to protect established. |
| Was the alleged harm legally foreseeable to impose a duty on BSA? | Widespread prior abuse within BSA made harm foreseeable and duties should extend to prevention. | Foreseeability alone, without a special relationship or custody, does not impose a duty. | Foreseeability insufficient to create duty; not liable on negligence. |
| Should SECA provide a civil recovery remedy and attorneys’ fees here if no criminal SECA charges exist? | SECA allows civil recovery based on conduct that would violate SECA, not necessarily on charged violations. | No civil SECA recovery without a criminal SECA violation or charges; fees unresolved. | Not decided at this stage; merits further briefing if plaintiffs prevail on underlying claims. |
| Is the civil conspiracy claim viable given pleading standards and the intracorporate conspiracy rule? | Plaintiffs allege coordination among multiple parties to achieve an unlawful or unlawful-use-of-means objective. | To plead conspiracy, must meet heightened pleading under Rule 9(b) and two or more participants; otherwise fails. | Dismissed without prejudice; failure to meet required pleading standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.J.C. v. Corporation of Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wash.2d 699 (1999) (church owes duty to protect vulnerable persons in custody)
- Doe v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 141 Wash.App. 407 (2007) (duty and foreseeability considerations in church-related abuse cases)
- Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wash.2d 39 (1997) (group home owes duty to protect residents from staff abuse when fully dependent)
- Lauritzen v. Lauritzen, 74 Wash.App. 432 (1994) (duty analysis for special relationships and guardianship-like duties)
- Taggart v. State, 118 Wash.2d 195 (1992) (special supervisory relationship may arise with ability to control)
- Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Ave. Assocs., 116 Wash.2d 217 (1991) (special relationship and duty concepts in torts)
- Caulfield v. Kitsap County, 108 Wash.App. 242 (2001) (custody and protective duties in custodial contexts)
- Webstad v. Stortini, 83 Wash.App. 857 (1996) (protective duties to vulnerable persons within custody)
- J.C. v. Society of Jesus, 457 F.Supp.2d 1201 (2006) (SECA discussion in federal court context)