189 A.3d 906
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2018Background
- Plaintiff Georgia (G.A.-H.), then 15, had an unlawful sexual relationship with EMT Kenneth (K.G.G.); Kenneth was criminally convicted and default judgment obtained against him.
- Georgia sued Kenneth and others: co-worker EMT Arthur (A.M.), their employer GEM Ambulance, LLC, and Lakewood S.C. United (a soccer organization alleged to have enabled Kenneth’s access).
- The trial court denied Georgia discovery from the Ocean County Prosecutor (including images and Arthur’s videotaped statements), granted summary judgment to Arthur and GEM, and refused to reinstate the claim against Lakewood S.C. United after service issues.
- The prosecutor expressed willingness to turn over materials under an appropriate protective order; the appellate court found the trial judge inadequately explained denial of turnover and discovery.
- The appellate court concluded the record (limited by restricted discovery and errors in summary-judgment review) was insufficiently developed to resolve whether a common-law duty to warn or report could be imposed on Arthur or GEM.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to report or warn based on Title 9 statutory reporting scheme | Georgia argued N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 supports a duty to report abuse by anyone aware of it | Arthur/GEM argued Title 9 duties apply only to abuse by parent/guardian/custodian and thus do not apply | Court: Title 9 reporting duties do not extend to non-guardian co-workers; statute inapplicable here |
| Common-law duty to warn/report by a co-worker of sexual abuse of a minor | Georgia argued common law may impose duty akin to J.S. (spousal nonfeasance) to prevent harm | Arthur/GEM argued J.S. is limited to spousal relationship and does not extend to co-workers | Court: Common law may impose such a duty depending on relationship, foreseeability, ability to act and public policy; remanded for fact development |
| Denial of discovery/turnover of prosecutor materials (images, statements) | Georgia sought prosecutor materials that could show Arthur’s knowledge or viewing of images | Prosecutor raised concerns about dissemination and potential statutory issues; Arthur opposed turnover | Court: Reversed trial court; ordered in camera review and allowed turnover under protective order; rejected argument that Adam Walsh Act barred civil discovery |
| Administrative dismissal and service on Lakewood S.C. United | Georgia sought reinstatement and alternative service; asserted she served principal (or by publication) | Insurer/defense disputed sufficiency of service (service given to aunt) | Court: Vacated trial court order; remanded for reconsideration and ordinarily liberal reinstatement after administrative dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- J.S. v. R.T.H., 155 N.J. 330 (1998) (recognized a spouse’s duty to act when suspecting sexual abuse by spouse against neighborhood children)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary-judgment standard: view facts in the light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp., 225 N.J. 517 (2016) (framework for imposing tort duties considers relationship, risk, opportunity to act, and public interest)
- Weinberg v. Dinger, 106 N.J. 469 (1987) (duty analysis asks whether plaintiff’s interests are entitled to protection against defendant’s conduct)
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (1993) (factors for duty and policy considerations in negligence claims)