347 S.W.3d 588
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- John Doe AP sues Archdiocese, Cooper, and Archbishop Burke for multiple tort theories based on sexual abuse by Cooper as a priest.
- Abuse occurred 1970–1971, mostly at Cooper's clubhouse on Big River, while Doe was a minor; he disclosed in 2002.
- Archdiocese unsuccessfully moved to dismiss counts I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX; Cooper died in 2003, leaving Count X.
- Archdiocese moved for summary judgment on Count X arguing abuse did not occur on Archdiocese premises and statute issues; trial court granted partial rulings and then summary judgment on Count X.
- Ms. Doe argues grooming and on-premises activities on church property toll the premises element; court analyzes Gibson v. Brewer and Restatement §317.
- Appellate review is de novo; Gibson governs negligent/intentional supervision claims against religious institutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premises element for intentional failure to supervise clergy | Doe argues no strict premises requirement; grooming suffices | Archdiocese: abuse occurred off premises, fails §317 premises | Gibson requires premises/control; Archdiocese wins on this issue |
| Grooming versus abuse on church property | Grooming on church property should satisfy premises element | Grooming not equivalent to abuse; not on premises | Grooming does not satisfy premises element; Archdiocese wins |
| Negligent failure to supervise children and First Amendment | Supervision duties exist despite First Amendment concerns | Gibson bars negligent failure to supervise; First Amendment applies | Gibson controls; claims dismissed |
| Overall viability of negligent supervision claims against a church | Claims should survive partial First Amendment scrutiny | Courts avoid negligent supervision of clergy due to entanglement | Gibson controlling; negligent supervision claims barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (First Amendment limits on religious institutions; supervision duty under Restatement §317)
- Weaver v. African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 54 S.W.3d 575 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (possession/use of premises by master for premises-based liability)
- Hutchison v. Luddy, 742 A.2d 1052 (Pa. 1999) (priest gains access to hotel room; premises-based liability under §317 cited)
- Snowbarger v. Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc., 793 S.W.2d 348 (Mo. banc 1990) (exception to premises rule; employer duty discussed)
- Berga v. Archway Kitchen and Bath, Inc., 926 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (distinguishable; negligent supervision context; First Amendment concerns)
- Smith v. Archbishop of St. Louis, 632 S.W.2d 516 (Mo. App. 1982) (doctrine of religious doctrine/administration in supervision cases)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Louis, 311 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (Mo. Supreme Court reaffirming Gibson as controlling law)
- Nicholson v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, 311 S.W.3d 825 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (reaffirmation of Gibson controlling law)
- Mary Doe SD v. The Salvation Army, 2007 WL 2757119 (E.D. Mo. 2007) (cited by federal decisions; not controlling state law)
- Perry v. Johnston, 641 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2011) (federal decisions on First Amendment applicability)