Brown v. USA Taekwondo
11 Cal.5th 204
| Cal. | 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (teenage taekwondo athletes) allege long‑running sexual abuse by their coach, Marc Gitelman, who coached at USA Taekwondo (USAT) events and was later criminally convicted.
- USAT is the national governing body for taekwondo; the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) oversees national governing bodies and had required adoption of a Safe Sport Program.
- Plaintiffs sued Gitelman, USAT, and USOC for negligence among other claims, alleging failure to protect and delayed/insufficient disciplinary action by USAT and oversight failures by USOC.
- Trial court sustained demurrers as to USAT and USOC; the Court of Appeal reversed dismissal as to USAT and affirmed dismissal as to USOC.
- The Supreme Court granted review to clarify the legal framework for when a defendant owes an affirmative duty to protect a plaintiff from third‑party wrongdoing, affirmed the Court of Appeal’s use of a two‑step framework, affirmed dismissal as to USOC, and permitted the action against USAT and other defendants to proceed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Framework for recognizing a duty to protect from third‑party conduct | Brown: courts may create a duty by applying Rowland’s multifactor policy balancing even absent a special relationship | Defendants: duty arises only if a special relationship (or other established basis) exists; Rowland is only for limiting duties | Held: Two‑step test: (1) first establish a special relationship or other basis for an affirmative duty; (2) if a duty exists, apply Rowland factors to determine whether public‑policy considerations should limit or negate it. |
| Whether Rowland alone can create an affirmative duty to protect | Brown: Rowland’s factors should be applied directly as an independent source of duty (flexible case‑by‑case inquiry) | USOC/USAT: Rowland guides whether to limit an existing duty, not to create one absent special circumstances | Held: Rejected — Rowland is not an independent source of duty; it guides whether to limit a duty that already exists. |
| Whether USAT owed an affirmative duty to plaintiffs | Brown: USAT registered, disciplined, and had authority over coaches — enough to show a special relationship enabling control and plaintiffs’ reliance | USAT: no special relationship sufficient to impose duty to protect from third‑party sexual abuse | Held: Court of Appeal concluded plaintiffs adequately alleged a special relationship as to USAT; Supreme Court affirmed the two‑step framework and the Court of Appeal judgment allowing the claim against USAT to proceed (case remanded). |
| Whether USOC owed an affirmative duty to plaintiffs | Brown: USOC’s regulatory authority over national governing bodies and knowledge of Safe Sport failures made it liable | USOC: no special relationship with plaintiffs or the coach; regulatory ability does not equate to control or a protectable expectation | Held: Court of Appeal (and Supreme Court) held plaintiffs failed to plead a special relationship between USOC and plaintiffs or coach; dismissal as to USOC affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (establishes Rowland multifactor policy test to decide when to limit duties under §1714)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 607 (Cal. 2018) (recognized university‑student special relationship duty to protect; applied Rowland to test limits)
- Nally v. Grace Community Church, 47 Cal.3d 278 (Cal. 1988) (refused to impose duty on non‑therapist counselors; discussed Rowland but did not treat it as independent source of duty)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005) (no general duty to control third parties absent an exception such as a special relationship)
- Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal.3d 18 (Cal. 1983) (no duty to assist or protect absent special relationship or negligent undertaking)
- Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (discusses misfeasance/nonfeasance and limited exceptions imposing affirmative duties)
- Castaneda v. Olsher, 41 Cal.4th 1205 (Cal. 2007) (special relationship can exist but Rowland may counsel against certain categorical duties)
- Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011) (§1714 presumption of general duty; Rowland factors applied to duty questions)
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016) (Rowland factors used to determine whether exceptions to §1714 should be recognized)
- Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 40 Cal.App.5th 1077 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (Court of Appeal adopted two‑step framework; found alleged special relationship as to USAT but not USOC)