marineau v. roman catholic diocese of burlington, 570-7-19 cncv

Background

Plaintiff alleges Father Alfred Willis (ordained 1976) sexually abused him in 1976–1977 while Plaintiff was an altar boy at St. Augustine’s (multiple locations). Plaintiff did not report the abuse until 1988 (therapist) and again in 2019.
Diocese personnel records contain no complaints about Willis before 1977; most of Willis’s personnel file was destroyed in 1995 pursuant to Canon Law.
Plaintiff sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington asserting civil conspiracy (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty (Count III), negligent supervision (Count IV), failure to prevent harm (Count VI), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII); Count II (fraud) was withdrawn and Count V previously dismissed.
Diocese moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court denied summary judgment as to negligent supervision and failure to prevent harm, but granted summary judgment for the Diocese on conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and IIED.
Key factual/legal drivers: (1) whether the Diocese had notice making Willis’s abuse foreseeable (court found jury question given evidence of prior allegations against other priests within the Diocese); (2) admissibility and weight of proffered historical records and the effect of personnel‑file destruction (spoliation claim rejected).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Negligent supervision (Count IV) — was Diocese negligent in hiring/supervising Willis?	Diocese was grossly negligent because it knew of prior credible accusations against other priests, creating a foreseeable risk that required more supervision.	No evidence Diocese had notice Willis posed a risk pre‑1977; dismissal of most of Willis’s file means records show no complaints before 1977; generalized national reports insufficient.	Denied summary judgment — a reasonable jury could find foreseeability based on notice of multiple similar incidents by other diocesan priests.
Breach of fiduciary duty (Count III) — did a fiduciary relationship exist between Diocese and Plaintiff?	Diocese’s doctrinal role, Plaintiff’s upbringing, and his service as an altar boy created a fiduciary relationship obligating disclosure/protection.	Diocese’s general status does not create fiduciary duties to parishioners absent a unique, particularized relationship.	Granted summary judgment — no evidence Diocese assumed the kind of custodial/confidential role required to create fiduciary duty.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII) — did Diocese commit extreme, outrageous conduct directed at Plaintiff?	Concealing abuse and enabling priests constituted outrageous conduct causing Plaintiff severe distress.	Alleged concealment was not conduct directed at Plaintiff as required by IIED; conduct was not intended to inflict emotional distress on him.	Granted summary judgment — IIED requires outrageous conduct directed at the plaintiff (or governed by §46(2) circumstances), which is lacking here.
Failure to prevent harm / special‑relationship duty (Count VI) — did Diocese owe and breach a duty to protect Plaintiff?	Diocese had a special relationship with children of the congregation (altar boys) requiring measures to prevent sexual abuse.	No special custodial relationship; any duty is merely ordinary negligence or overlaps with negligent supervision.	Denied summary judgment — court found a triable issue that a special relationship existed with minor congregants and that reasonable protective measures could have been required.
Civil conspiracy (Count I) — was there an agreement to facilitate Willis’s abuse or an illegal act in furtherance causing Plaintiff’s harm?	Diocese conspired to conceal abuse and to aid/abet priests, enabling Willis’s abuse.	No evidence of an agreement involving Willis or of specific illegal acts in furtherance that caused Plaintiff’s harm; conspiracy cannot be shown by negligence alone.	Granted summary judgment — no evidentiary link of an agreement or causal connection to Plaintiff’s abuse.

Key Cases Cited

Haverly v. Kaytec, Inc., 169 Vt. 350 (Vt. 1999) (adopts Restatement §213 framework for negligent supervision claims)
Deveneau v. Wielt, 201 Vt. 396 (Vt. 2016) (foreseeability as an element relevant to duty in negligence cases)
Stopford v. Milton Town Sch. Dist., 209 Vt. 171 (Vt. 2018) (generalized risk insufficient for foreseeability absent specific similar incidents)
Blondin v. Milton Town Sch. Dist., 214 Vt. 44 (Vt. 2021) (generalized risk can support foreseeability when accompanied by knowledge of specific, similar acts)
Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 1999) (circumstances where diocesan knowledge and encouragement supported inference of special/fiduciary relationship)
Roman Cath. Bishop v. Superior Ct., 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (consensual adult sexual conduct does not, by itself, indicate propensity to abuse children)
Doe v. Roman Cath. Archbishop of Los Angeles, 285 Cal. Rptr. 3d 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (notice of other priests’ abuse can make sexual abuse of minors foreseeable to the diocese)