Conti v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.
235 Cal. App. 4th 1214
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Candace Conti, a former member of a Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation, sued the local Fremont Congregation and Watchtower (church headquarters) after she was sexually molested as a child by fellow member Jonathan Kendrick. Elders had learned Kendrick had previously molested his stepdaughter.
- Fremont elders removed Kendrick as a ministerial servant, kept the reason confidential, and reported the matter to Watchtower; a police report and misdemeanor conviction later resulted.
- Watchtower letters to elders emphasized confidentiality for ministerial communications and advised contacting Watchtower’s Legal Department about child abuse; one Watchtower witness testified any limits on a known molester’s "field service" were handled case-by-case.
- Conti testified Kendrick repeatedly molested her while they participated in church-sponsored "field service" (door-to-door ministry), often isolating her and driving her to his home after field service.
- The jury found defendants negligent, awarded large compensatory damages, and assessed punitive damages against Watchtower based on its alleged secrecy policy; the trial court reduced the punitive award.
- On appeal the court affirmed negligence liability for failure to restrict/supervise Kendrick’s field service but reversed punitive damages based solely on failure to warn the congregation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn the congregation that Kendrick was a child molester | Conti: elders had a duty to inform members so they could protect children; Watchtower’s secrecy policy is culpable | Defendants: no duty to warn members; confidentiality and clergy practice justify nondisclosure | No duty to warn the congregation; secrecy policy alone cannot support punitive damages (reversed as to punitive award) |
| Duty to warn Conti’s parents about Kendrick | Conti: elders undertook monitoring and should have warned parents when they observed threatening behavior | Defendants: no legal duty to continuously monitor or notify parents; confidentiality and burden weigh against such duty | No duty to warn parents; negligent undertaking doctrine did not apply (no reliance or increased risk shown) |
| Duty to restrict/supervise Kendrick’s field service (church‑sponsored activity) | Conti: defendants controlled field service logistics and had duty to prevent known molester from being alone with children | Defendants: field service is voluntary/personal ministry; limited or no ability to control who engages in it | Duty found: special-relationship and Rowland factors support a duty to use reasonable care to restrict/supervise Kendrick’s field service; jury could find breach (affirmed) |
| Punitive damages based on Watchtower’s confidentiality policy | Conti: Watchtower acted despicably by hiding known abusers and thus punitive damages are warranted | Watchtower: no basis to impose punitive damages for following clergy confidentiality; excess and unsupported | Punitive damages tied solely to failure-to-warn/confidentiality reversed; judgment for Watchtower on punitive claim directed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (recognizes limits on duty to control third-party conduct; background on duty to warn doctrine)
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (discusses general rule that one owes no duty to control another or warn third parties absent special relationship)
- Eric J. v. Betty M., 76 Cal.App.4th 715 (applies no-duty rule where family members who did not facilitate molestation were not liable for failing to warn)
- Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.App.4th 1556 (explores special-relationship requirement for imposing duty to protect from third-party criminal acts)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (sets multi-factor test for duty analysis in negligence cases)
- Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 81 Cal.App.4th 377 (holds organization may be liable for failing to implement its own youth-protection policies; analogous to field-service supervision issue)