Doe v. Boy Scouts of America
4 N.E.3d 550
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- John Doe (minor) was sexually assaulted by Charles Bickerstaff beginning July 2006; Bickerstaff later convicted and imprisoned. Bickerstaff had previously worked for the Blackhawk Area Council (BAC) and held various district executive roles for decades; he retired from BAC on March 10, 2006.
- Plaintiff (John’s mother) sued Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and BAC for negligence (negligent hiring/retention, voluntary undertaking, and voluntary custody theories), alleging they should have known Bickerstaff was dangerous and failed to protect scouts.
- BSA is a national organization that forwards candidate materials and maintains an "ineligible volunteer" list; councils (like BAC) actually hire and supervise district executives. Bickerstaff reported to BAC scout executives, not to BSA.
- Relevant prehire/retention facts: Bickerstaff had a prior Navy discharge (noted as for suspected "homosexual tendencies" and drug issues), a DWI conviction in Germany, and some volunteers (notably Stephen Clark) later reported suspicious behavior (e.g., watching boys in a locker room) to a BAC employee (Geraghty) years before the assaults.
- At summary judgment BAC and BSA argued no duty existed because Bickerstaff was not employed by BSA and had ceased employment with BAC months before the assaults. The trial court excluded unauthenticated handwritten journals and granted summary judgment for BSA and BAC; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BSA can be liable for negligent hiring/retention of Bickerstaff | BSA effectively participated in hiring via its clearinghouse role and thus "effectively hired" Bickerstaff | BSA never employed or controlled Bickerstaff; hiring/retention liability requires an employer-employee relationship | BSA was not Bickerstaff’s employer as a matter of law; no negligent-hiring claim against BSA |
| Whether BAC (the former employer) can be liable for negligent hiring/retention for assaults that occurred after Bickerstaff’s termination | BAC should be liable because antecedent hiring/retention failures (and earlier warning signs) made assaults foreseeable even after termination | Negligent-hiring/retention liability is tied to employment and plaintiff cites no authority to extend it to posttermination acts; causation is lacking here | Court refused to extend negligent-hiring/retention to posttermination acts and, alternatively, found no material factual dispute that would defeat summary judgment against BAC |
| Whether BSA/BAC are liable under a voluntary-undertaking theory for protecting scouts from predators | BSA/BAC voluntarily undertook youth-protection and failed to exercise due care in screening/retaining Bickerstaff | Any voluntary-protection duty ended with Bickerstaff’s employment; no ongoing undertaking that would make defendants liable for posttermination acts | Voluntary-undertaking theory narrowly construed; no liability where undertaking did not continue or place plaintiff in a worse position |
| Whether BAC assumed a duty by taking custody of John (voluntary custody theory) | BAC’s relationship with John (through scouting) constituted custody that deprived John of normal protection opportunities, creating a duty | John was not in BAC custody when assaults occurred; no special custody relationship persisted after Bickerstaff’s retirement | No voluntary-custody duty existed at the time of the assaults; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380 (duty necessary for negligence)
- Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill. 2d 299 (elements of negligent hiring/retention)
- Simmons v. Homatas, 236 Ill. 2d 459 (no general duty to protect against third-party criminal acts absent special relationship)
- Escobar v. Madsen Construction Co., 226 Ill. App. 3d 92 (employment must be causally connected to injury; employer liability limited where act occurred off premises and without employer instrumentalities)
- MacDonald v. Hinton, 361 Ill. App. 3d 378 (refusal to impose liability where injury did not occur on employer premises or use employer instrumentalities)
- Fallon v. Indian Trail School, 148 Ill. App. 3d 931 (negligent hiring framed to prevent injuries occurring by virtue of employment)
- Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223 (voluntary undertaking doctrine)
- Doe v. Dimovski, 336 Ill. App. 3d 292 (contrast case where alleged overt sexualized conduct supported negligent-retention claim)