419 S.W.3d 143
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff D.T., abused at ~12 by Father Michael Tierney in the early 1970s, sued the Diocese and Bishop Finn in 2011 after allegedly recovering/suppressing memories; alleged Diocese knew Tierney had molested others and that further harm was certain or substantially certain to occur.
- The alleged molestations occurred off church property (Tierney’s mother’s basement and a hotel) and were not part of parish activities.
- The trial court denied most statute-of-limitations dismissals based on repressed memories but dismissed all claims against the Diocese for failure to state a claim; D.T. appealed.
- On appeal, the court accepted pleadings as true and evaluated whether negligence claims and an intentional-failure-to-supervise claim could proceed under Missouri precedent, chiefly Gibson v. Brewer.
- The court affirmed dismissal of negligence counts (negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligent supervision/retention; negligent failure to supervise children) as barred by Gibson when tied to supervision of clergy.
- The court also affirmed dismissal of the intentional-failure-to-supervise claim because Gibson incorporates Restatement (Second) of Torts §317’s premises/chattel nexus, which the pleadings did not satisfy (abuse occurred off Diocese premises and without use of Diocese chattel).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence claims tied to supervision of clergy are cognizable | Gibson not meant to bar all negligence; D.T. can sue for negligent failure to supervise children in Diocese care | Gibson bars negligence-based supervision claims that would entangle courts in religious doctrine/polity | Dismissed — Gibson precludes these negligence claims when grounded in clergy supervision |
| Whether negligent failure to supervise non-clergy (children) survives Gibson | Smith v. Archbishop supports liability for inattentive supervision of children | Diocese: supervision of clergy (to keep them from children) is required to protect children, but that inquiry would implicate religious governance | Dismissed — facts show claim tied to supervising clergy, so Gibson controls and bars it |
| Whether intentional-failure-to-supervise clergy requires that the harm occur on Diocese premises or with Diocese chattel under Gibson/§317 | D.T.: Gibson’s intent-based tort focuses on Diocese knowledge that harm was certain; §317’s premises requirement should not be rigid; modern Restatements (Third) and agency doctrines support liability even when abuse occurred off premises | Diocese: Gibson adopted §317 and requires the servant be on master’s premises or using master’s chattel; absent that nexus, no duty under Gibson | Dismissed — court bound to Gibson’s elements including §317 nexus; alleged abuse off-premises fails that requirement |
| Whether more modern Restatement/agency principles or other sections (e.g., Restatement (Third) §7.05, §41, or §219 of Restatement (Second) of Agency) allow liability despite §317’s premises requirement | D.T.: Restatement (Third) and agency sections focus on foreseeability and control, removing §317’s premises constraint and supporting liability where harm was substantially certain and employer could control the employee | Diocese: §317 remains controlling per Gibson; Supreme Court precedent is binding and §317 was adopted as an element | Denied — this court cannot modify Gibson’s elements; only Missouri Supreme Court may revise the rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (establishes elements for intentional failure to supervise clergy and restricts negligence claims that would entangle courts in religious doctrine)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, 311 S.W.3d 818 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) (applies Gibson to bar negligence and construes §317 requirement)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, 347 S.W.3d 588 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (reaffirms Gibson’s limits and rejects extending liability where abuse occurred off church premises)
- Powel v. Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. banc 2006) (statute-of-limitations/repressed-memory tolling context cited by trial court)
- Smith v. Archbishop of St. Louis, 682 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App. 1984) (distinguished: negligent supervisory liability permitted for lay employee’s failings, not for clergy-supervision matters implicating First Amendment)
- Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass'n, 745 N.E.2d 1166 (Ill. 2000) (analyzed foreseeability and employer control under §317; court here reads Hills as sympathetic to foreseeability/control arguments but recognizes factual differences)