531 P.3d 901
Wash. Ct. App.2023Background:
- Plaintiff R.K. alleges sexual abuse by coach Ty Treddenbarger beginning in 1997 when R.K. was a minor and continuing into 1999; R.K. reported the abuse in 2017.
- Treddenbarger was a long‑time leader of Washington State YABA (WS‑YABA); WS‑YABA was a state subsidiary of the national Young American Bowling Alliance (YABA).
- In 2005 YABA merged into the United States Bowling Congress (USBC), which assumed YABA’s liabilities; WS‑YABA remained separate and was administratively dissolved in 2010.
- R.K. sued USBC, YABA, WS‑YABA and others in 2020 alleging negligence for failure to protect him from Treddenbarger’s abuse.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for USBC, concluding USBC owed no duty to R.K.; the court left unresolved a factual question about statute‑of‑limitations tolling. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USBC/YABA owed a duty to R.K. via a special relationship with the victim | YABA/USBC had responsibility for youth at YABA‑sanctioned events and thus assumed protective duties | YABA/USBC only provided standards and certification; they exercised no day‑to‑day control or custodial authority over youth or coaches | No duty: no special relationship with R.K.; YABA did not assume custodial control |
| Whether USBC/YABA owed a duty via a special relationship with the tortfeasor (control/knowledge) | YABA could discipline WS‑YABA and set standards, implying control and notice of risk | YABA/USBC lacked actual or constructive knowledge of Treddenbarger’s dangerous propensities and had no effective control over his conduct | No duty: no awareness of dangerous propensities and insufficient control to create duty |
| Whether YABA/USBC are vicariously liable for WS‑YABA/Treddenbarger | Parent/subsidiary and agency relationships make YABA (and thus USBC) vicariously liable for WS‑YABA employee acts | Employer/parent not vicariously liable for employee’s intentional sexual misconduct; plaintiff effectively abandoned theory below | No vicarious liability: sexual torts for personal gratification do not impose respondeat superior liability here |
| Whether the childhood sexual‑abuse tolling statute saved R.K.’s claim from the statute of limitations | RCW tolling for childhood sexual abuse applies to preserve claim | Defendants argued claims were time‑barred | Not decided on appeal: court affirmed on duty grounds and therefore did not reach tolling issue (trial court found a genuine factual dispute on tolling) |
Key Cases Cited
- Niece v. Elmview Grp. Home, 131 Wn.2d 39 (Wash. 1997) (establishes special‑relationship duty to protect vulnerable persons when care and control are assumed)
- H.B.H. v. State, 192 Wn.2d 154 (Wash. 2018) (clarifies assumption‑of‑responsibility basis for protective duties beyond physical custody)
- N.K. v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑Day Saints, 175 Wn. App. 517 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (national organizations without on‑the‑ground control lack custodial special relationship)
- N.L. v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 186 Wn.2d 422 (Wash. 2016) (foreseeability standard for imposing protective duties)
- C.J.C. v. Corporation of Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 599 (Wash. 1999) (limits on imposing vicarious liability for intentional sexual misconduct)
- Thompson v. Everett Clinic, 71 Wn. App. 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (employer not vicariously liable for employee’s intentional sexual torts)
- Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1077 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (persuasive authority finding a national sports body could owe duties where it controlled coach registration and knew of risks)
- S.H.C. v. Lu, 113 Wn. App. 511 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (addresses limits on vicarious liability for sexual abuse)