Doe 169 v. Brandon
2014 Minn. LEXIS 190
| Minn. | 2014Background
- John Doe 169 sued the Minnesota District Council of the Assemblies of God (District Council) after a volunteer minister, Paul Brandon, sexually abused him during church-related sleepovers while Brandon retained Assemblies of God ministerial credentials.
- Brandon had previously resigned under discipline from a different congregation after concerns about inappropriate conduct; he later volunteered at Emmanuel Christian Center (ECC) and served as a long‑time volunteer captain. ECC volunteers were not required to hold ministerial credentials.
- The District Council, through its Secretary/Treasurer Gregory Hickle (formerly Brandon’s supervisor at MGAG), recommended renewal of Brandon’s credentials to the denomination’s General Council in 2004–2005; the General Council had sole authority to renew credentials.
- Doe sued Brandon, ECC, and the District Council; the district court granted summary judgment for the District Council on negligence, finding no duty of care; the court of appeals reversed, holding a duty could exist under Domagala; this court granted review.
- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals: it held the District Council owed no duty to Doe because its conduct did not create a foreseeable risk to a foreseeable plaintiff; the court did not reach the First Amendment issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Council owed a duty of care to Doe for harms caused by a third party volunteer | The District Council’s recommendations in the credential‑renewal process constituted affirmative conduct creating a foreseeable risk to foreseeable plaintiffs (Domagala second instance) | The District Council merely processed renewal paperwork and did not employ, supervise, or control ECC or Brandon; any link to Doe’s injury is too remote | No duty: the District Council’s conduct did not create a foreseeable risk to a foreseeable plaintiff, so summary judgment affirmed for District Council |
| Whether the First Amendment barred Doe’s negligence claim | (Argued below; appellant contended claim was permissible) | District Council argued First Amendment could bar adjudication of church governance actions | Not reached: court resolved case on duty grounds and avoided constitutional ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2011) (recognizes two instances when a duty to protect from third‑party harm may arise: special relationship or defendant’s own conduct creating foreseeable risk)
- Bjerlce v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2007) (special relationship can create duty to protect invitee from sexual abuse)
- Delgado v. Lohmar, 289 N.W.2d 479 (Minn. 1979) (duty may arise where defendant’s conduct creates foreseeable risk to others)
- H.B. ex rel. Clark v. Whittemore, 552 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. 1996) (declined to impose duty absent special relationship where defendant took no protective action)
- Whiteford ex rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 582 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. 1998) (foreseeability in duty analysis is ordinarily reviewed de novo)
- Germann v. F.L. Smithe Mach. Co., 395 N.W.2d 922 (Minn. 1986) (no duty when connection between defendant’s conduct and danger is too remote)
- Erlandson v. Kiffmeyer, 659 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. 2003) (court should avoid deciding constitutional issues if case can be resolved on other grounds)