143 Conn. App. 719
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Robert Gough, an acolyte from age 12, alleges Father Bruce Jacques sexually abused him in 1977 while Jacques was priest at St. Peter’s (served 1976–1984); plaintiff did not disclose the abuse until 2000.
- Plaintiff sued St. Peter’s Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming the defendants knew or should have known Jacques posed a risk.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting ordination records, a 1997 deposition sentence relating to unrelated misconduct, clergy and lay affidavits saying they never suspected Jacques, and bishops’ affidavits describing ordination screening and anti‑abuse policies.
- Plaintiff opposed with his deposition/affidavit and testimony indicating fear and secrecy; he pointed to church policies as evidence the church knew clergy could pose abuse risks.
- Trial court found a possible fiduciary relationship but ruled no duty arose because the defendants lacked knowledge or suspicion that Jacques would abuse; harm was not reasonably foreseeable. Summary judgment for defendants was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a legal duty to protect plaintiff from Jacques’ abuse | Church policies and general foreseeability of adult-on-child abuse show defendants should have anticipated risk | No one who knew Jacques had knowledge, suspicion, or facts suggesting he would abuse; screening showed no warning signs | No duty: harm not reasonably foreseeable; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether church policies alone create a factual issue on foreseeability | Policies demonstrate awareness of the potential for clergy abuse and need for safeguards | Policies do not prove contemporaneous knowledge of risk from Jacques specifically | Policies insufficient without specific facts showing Jacques posed a foreseeable risk |
| Whether plaintiff presented controverting evidence to defeat summary judgment | Plaintiff’s late disclosure and testimony of fear create credibility and factual disputes | Plaintiff offered no evidence that anyone at church knew or suspected Jacques; admissions that allegations weren’t public until later | Plaintiff failed to produce evidentiary facts raising a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether public policy review was required after foreseeability inquiry | N/A (argued implicitly that duty should extend) | If harm not foreseeable, public policy analysis unnecessary | Court declined public policy analysis because foreseeability failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sic v. Nunan, 307 Conn. 399 (Connecticut 2012) (sets two‑part duty test focused on foreseeability and public policy)
- Biller Associates v. Peterken, 269 Conn. 716 (Connecticut 2004) (defines fiduciary relationship elements)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (Connecticut 1998) (rejects literal foreseeability test; liability limited to reasonably foreseeable harms)
- Tarro v. Mastriani Realty, LLC, 142 Conn. App. 419 (Conn. App. 2013) (summary judgment standard and viewing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Monk v. Temple George Associates, LLC, 273 Conn. 108 (Connecticut 2005) (if foreseeability fails, public policy prong need not be reached)
- Martin v. Westport, 108 Conn. App. 710 (Conn. App. 2008) (opposing party must produce evidentiary foundation to create genuine issue on summary judgment)