2014 Ohio 4236
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff M.S., born 2003, alleged sexual abuse by her great-grandfather David Harvey while in his care; medical exam confirmed abuse and criminal proceedings followed.
- Harvey previously sexually abused other family members (defendant adult children knew of prior abuse); several family members met with Pastor Thayer in the 1990s and handled allegations internally.
- Kochheiser and Russell Harvey (adult children of David) knew of prior abuse, urged Harvey not to babysit, and had some control over Harvey’s affairs (served as powers of attorney). They knew David and his wife had babysat M.S. at least a year before disclosure.
- M.S. sued David Harvey (sexual assault, IIED) and sued Kochheiser and Russell for negligent failure to warn/report; sued Pastor Thayer and Grace Brethren Church for negligence/negligent supervision.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Pastor Thayer/Church (striking affidavits offered by plaintiff) and granted directed verdicts in favor of Kochheiser and Russell at the close of plaintiff’s case; jury returned verdicts awarding M.S. $175,000 on each count against David Harvey.
- On appeal, the court reversed directed verdicts for Kochheiser and Russell (duty to warn), affirmed summary judgment for Thayer/Church (no knowledge or duty to report/warn), and remanded for correction of judgment entry regarding double recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kochheiser and Russell had a duty to warn/protect based on a "special relationship" and specialized knowledge | Their familial role, control over Harvey, awareness of his prior abuse, and knowledge he babysat M.S. created a special relationship and duty to warn M.S.'s parents | No special relationship/duty existed as a matter of law | Court: Duty existed; directed verdict was improper — reversed as to duty to warn |
| Whether breach and causation were for the jury | Breach of reasonable care was disputed and should go to the jury | Argued no duty so no breach question for jury | Court: Because duty exists, breach and proximate causation are jury questions — reversed directed verdict on breach |
| Whether Kochheiser and Russell violated felony‑reporting statute (R.C. 2921.22) | They failed to report a felony (Harvey’s abuse) | Statute exempts failing to report incriminating information about immediate family members | Court: Exemption applies; no liability under R.C. 2921.22 — directed verdict proper on this claim |
| Whether summary judgment for Pastor Thayer and the Church was proper (duty to warn/report) | Thayer was negligent in counseling Harvey and failed to warn/report; Church negligently supervised | Thayer and Church had no actual or constructive knowledge of abuse or that Harvey babysat M.S. | Court: Thayer’s affidavit negated knowledge of abuse or babysitting; no duty to report or warn—summary judgment affirmed as to Thayer/Church claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Ctr., 77 Ohio St.3d 284 (discusses special relationships and duty to control third persons)
- Sanek v. Duracote Corp., 43 Ohio St.3d 169 (standard for directed verdict/review)
- Howell v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 102 Ohio App.3d 6 (de novo review on directed verdict)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (summary judgment burden on moving party)