Doe v. Superior Court
187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- The First Baptist Church of San Jose operated a summer day camp where Keith Woodhouse worked as a staff supervisor (employed intermittently 2003–2009).
- Woodhouse had prior discipline/concerns for inappropriate conduct with young girls (terminated in 2004; observed stroking a girl’s hair in 2006). Camp rehired him in 2006.
- In 2007 two lifeguards witnessed Woodhouse kissing the Doe child on the neck, heard the child complain of being touched, and observed behavior consistent with masturbation; written statements were given and Woodhouse was terminated for rule violations, but Camp concluded there was no evidence of inappropriate touching.
- Camp did not notify the child’s parents or police about the 2007 pool incident; parents only learned of it years later during a police investigation into other allegations against Woodhouse.
- Plaintiffs (parents and minor) sued Camp and Woodhouse asserting multiple causes of action including intentional and negligent concealment (seventh and eighth causes of action). The trial court sustained Camp’s demurrer to the concealment claims without leave to amend, concluding Camp had no duty to disclose; the Court of Appeal granted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Camp owed a duty to disclose suspected molestation (basis for fraud by concealment / negligent concealment) | Camp’s special relationships with employee, child, and parents made disclosure part of its duty to exercise reasonable care; failure to disclose supports concealment causes | No duty to disclose; duty to prevent harm is distinct from any duty to disclose; camp asserted voluntariness of attendance distinguishes it from school cases | Reversed: duty to exercise reasonable care (given special relationships and facts) included an obligation to disclose the verified 2007 incident to parents |
| Timeliness (statute of limitations defense to underlying claims) | Plaintiffs argued delayed discovery tolled limitations and claims were not time-barred | Camp argued allegations were time-barred | Trial court previously overruled demurrer as to statute of limitations; appellate proceeding left that determination intact |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) directed at parents | Plaintiffs alleged severe emotional harm from concealment affecting parents | Camp argued IIED claim was defective for not alleging conduct directed specifically at parents | Trial court sustained IIED demurrer with leave to amend (not resolved on writ) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (1976) (therapist’s duty to take reasonable steps, including warning, to protect foreseeable victims from patient’s threats)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968) (factors for determining duty of care)
- Phyllis P. v. Superior Court, 183 Cal.App.3d 1193 (1986) (school’s special relationship included duty to notify parent of student molestation)
- Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197 (1982) (discussing Rowland factors in duty analysis)
- Fowler v. Seaton, 61 Cal.2d 681 (1964) (day care/operator stands in loco parentis; duty to supervise children)
- Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 202 (1991) (employer/agency liability and control responsibilities over third parties)
- Cansino v. Bank of America, 224 Cal.App.4th 1462 (2014) (de novo review of demurrer; assume truth of properly pleaded facts)
- Bank of America Corp. v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.App.4th 862 (2011) (elements required for fraud by concealment)