147 Conn. App. 622
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff John Roe #1, a CT minor, alleged Harris sexually abused him on scouting trips.
- Defendants Boy Scouts of America Corp. and Connecticut Rivers Council moved to dismiss; Harris is not a party to this appeal.
- Plaintiff claimed corporate negligence, breach of fiduciary/confidential duty, and duty of care to children.
- Discovery dispute focused on interrogatory 14 seeking the Scouts' pre-abuse knowledge and records; court limited scope to CT history in last ten years.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no duty or foreseeability and no agency relationship with Harris.
- Plaintiff appealed, challenging discovery limitation, summary judgment on duty/foreseeability, and denial of reargument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was discovery properly limited to CT history in last ten years? | Roe argued broader knowledge exists; sought national data on abuse | Boy Scouts asserted overly broad scope and privacy/work-product concerns | No abuse of discretion; scope limited but not denied all relevant data |
| Did defendants owe a duty to protect Roe from Harris’ abuse? | Duty exists due to special relationship and protective responsibilities | No special duty; no foreseeability; Harris not an agent; not in control | No duty; summary judgment proper |
| Was there an agency relationship between Harris and defendants? | Agency existed through control/selection of leaders per Dale brief | Local charter orgs select/ supervise volunteers; no agency | No agency; no vicarious liability based on Harris's actions |
| Was Harris's abuse foreseeable to defendants, justifying duty? | Foreseeability supports duty to protect children | Harris's abuse not foreseen; no knowledge prior to 2007; policy concerns | Not foreseeable; no duty to protect Roe under these facts |
| Did court abuse its discretion denying reargument? | Cited Coville, Grenier, Gutierrez as controlling; Grenier postdated ruling | Ruling consistent with existing precedent; no new controlling law misapplied | No abuse of discretion; denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (2012) (duty analysis; foreseeability guidance; special relationship test)
- Fraser v. United States, 236 Conn. 625 (1996) (limited duty to prevent injury without custody/control relationship)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (1998) (foreseeability and public policy in duty analysis)
- Coville v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 57 Conn. App. 275 (2000) (special duty when taking custody or control; not present here)
- Gutierrez v. Thorne, 13 Conn. App. 493 (1988) (foreseeability fact-intensive; summary judgment inappropriate for foreseeability in some contexts)
- Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (expressive association; not altering local control framework for duty here)