| |
Girl, Parents Sue Miami Archdiocese
By Matt C. Abbott
Renew America [Florida]
March 7, 2007
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070307
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JANE DOE 31, CASE NO.
BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER AND
FATHER AS PARENTS AND NATURAL
GUARDIANS, AND HER MOTHER AND
FATHER, INDIVIDUALLY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC.,
ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, A CORPORATION SOLE,
ARCHBISHOP FAVALORA AS CORPORATE SOLE
OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, and
SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, JANE DOE 31, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER AND FATHER AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, AND JANE DOE's MOTHER AND JANE DOE's FATHER, INDIVIDUALLY, bring this Complaint against Defendants, ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC., ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, A CORPORATION SOLE, ARCHBISHOP FAVALORA AS CORPORATE SOLE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI and SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH, as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. This is an action for damages arising from the sexual abuse of a child by a youth minister and employee of the ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, at SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH in Pinecrest, Florida.
2. This action seeks compensation in excess of $25 million.
3. Because this Complaint concerns sexual abuse upon a minor, Plaintiffs bring this Complaint under a fictitious name to protect their identities.
4. Defendant ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC. is a non-profit Florida Corporation. Defendants ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC., ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, A COPRORATION SOLE and ARCHBISHOP FAVALORA AS CORPORATE SOLE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI are responsible for the interests of the Roman Catholic Church in Miami-Dade County. Defendant SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is operated by the ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI (collectively all Defendants are referred to herein as the "ARCHDIOCESE" or the "ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI")
SEXUAL ABUSE OF JANE DOE
5. JANE DOE and her family were at all relevant times devout Catholics. They were active and involved in activities at SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH. JANE was a member of the SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH youth group known as New Life. At all relevant times, JANE DOE was 15 years old.
6. ANTHONY B. RICCO was at all relevant times a youth minister at SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH, and given responsibilities for the moral and spiritual well being of the Church youth through various duties and functions on behalf of the New Life group. At all relevant times RICCO was an agent, employee and representative of SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH and the ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI.
7. As a youth minister and in his role with New Life, RICCO groomed JANE DOE and manipulated her into a sexual relationship with him. He sexually assaulted JANE on numerous occasions in March and April, 2006.
8. RICCO's supervisors at SAINT LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH, including Paul Herring, senior youth minister, and Fr. James Fetscher, pastor, had been advised and informed that ANTHONY RICCO was a child sex molester long before RICCO sexually assaulted JANE. Specifically, they received the first of multiple prior complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse against RICCO in November, 2004.
9. Not only did Mr. Herring and Fr. Fetscher not take any action to protect the New Life youth group children once they learned of RICCO's dangerous propensities, they instead placed him in a position where he could molest more girls. In particular, they sent RICCO with the New Life youth group on a field trip to Stowe, Vermont in April, 2006. On that field trip, RICCO sexually molested multiple girls including JANE DOE.
10. The ARCHDIOCESE knew or should have known that RICCO was sexually abusing girls, and it failed to protect JANE and other minors. Indeed, despite multiple instances of actual notice, the ARCHDIOCESE took no action against RICCO, and knowingly placed him in a position of easy access to molest New Life youth group girls.
11. On December 7, 2006 RICCO pled no contest to nine counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child. These counts include his sexual assaults on JANE.
12. RICCO and JANE were in a fiduciary relationship. RICCO was in a position of trust and confidence with JANE. JANE looked to RICCO for counseling and guidance.
13. At all relevant times, RICCO, Herring and Fetscher were under the supervision and control of the ARCHDIOCESE.
14. The ARCHDIOCESE was in a fiduciary relationship with JANE. The ARCHDIOCESE was in a position of trust and confidence with JANE. JANE looked to the ARCHDIOCESE and its representatives for counseling and guidance. In addition, the ARCHDIOCESE knew that JANE had a special and privileged relationship with RICCO. The ARCHDIOCESE owed JANE a fiduciary duty to:
a. Investigate and warn JANE of the potential for harm from RICCO;
b. Disclose its awareness of facts regarding RICCO that created a likely potential for harm;
c. Disclose its own negligence with regard to hiring, supervision and retention of RICCO;
d. Provide a safe environment for JANE where she would be free from abuse; and
e. Protect JANE from exposure to harmful individuals like RICCO.
15. The ARCHDIOCESE breached its fiduciary duty to JANE by failing to:
a. Investigate and warn JANE of the potential for harm from RICCO;
b. Disclose its awareness of facts regarding RICCO that created a likely potential for harm;
c. Disclose its own negligence with regard to hiring, supervision and retention of RICCO;
d. Provide a safe environment for JANE where she was free from abuse; and
e. Protect JANE from exposure to harmful individuals like RICCO.
COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE
16. Plaintiffs repeat and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 15 above.
17. At all material times, the ARCHDIOCESE owed a duty to Plaintiffs to use reasonable care to insure the safety, care, well being and health of the minor JANE while she was under the care, custody or in the presence of the ARCHDIOCESE. The ARCHDIOCESE's duties encompassed the hiring, retention and supervision of RICCO and otherwise providing a safe environment for JANE.
18. The ARCHDIOCESE breached these duties by failing to protect the minor JANE from sexual assault and lewd and lascivious acts committed by the agent and employee of the ARCHDIOCESE, RICCO.
19. At all relevant times, the ARCHDIOCESE knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that RICCO was unfit, dangerous, and a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the minors entrusted to his counsel, care and protection.
20. With such actual or constructive knowledge, the ARCHDIOCESE provided RICCO easy and unfettered access to JANE.
21. At all relevant times, the ARCHDIOCESE created an environment which fostered child sexual abuse against children it had a duty to protect, including JANE.
22. At all relevant times, the ARCHDIOCESE had inadequate policies and procedures to protect children it was entrusted to care for and protect, including JANE.
23. As a direct and proximate result of the ARCHDIOCESE's negligence, JANE suffered severe and permanent psychological, emotional and physical injuries, shame, humiliation and the inability to lead a normal life.
24. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JANE DOE demands judgment against the ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI for compensatory damages, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems proper. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint pursuant to Florida Statute to add a claim for punitive damages.
COUNT II
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR / VICARIOUS LIABILITY
25. Plaintiff JANE DOE repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 15 above.
26. RICCO was at all material times hereto the employee, appointee and agent of the ARCHDIOCESE.
27. RICCO was authorized to be with JANE and to have unfettered and unsupervised access to young JANE.
28. The acts described above occurred on premises controlled by the ARCHDIOCESE (or at a place authorized by the ARCHDIOCESE), occurred during working hours, and occurred in the course and scope of the performance of RICCO's duties. RICCO's initial contact and relationship with JANE was in furtherance of the business of the ARCHDIOCESE. In addition, RICCO was authorized to touch JANE, have her sit on his lap, and display affection in a manner consistent with providing counseling, spiritual guidance and leadership. RICCO extended and converted his authorized touching into the sexual abuse of JANE as described above.
29. The wrongful acts of RICCO were committed in the actual or apparent course and scope of his employment or agency with the ARCHDIOCESE.
30. The wrongful acts were committed while RICCO was doing what his employment or agency contemplated.
31. RICCO acted with willful or reckless disregard for JANE's welfare.
32. RICCO's conduct was outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency.
33. As a result of RICCO's conduct, JANE has suffered severe and permanent psychological, emotional and physical injuries, shame, humiliation and the inability to lead a normal life.
34. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the ARCHDIOCESE is responsible for the negligent, reckless and intentional actions of its servant, RICCO, committed in the actual or apparent scope of his duties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment against the ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI for compensatory damages, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff intends to move to further amend the Complaint in accordance with Florida Statute to assert a claim for punitive damages.
COUNT III
LOSS OF PARENTAL CONSORTIUM
35. Plaintiffs JANE DOE's MOTHER and JANE DOE's FATHER repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 15 above.
36. Defendants' tortious acts and omissions are the direct and proximate cause of damages to JANE DOE's MOTHER and JANE DOE's FATHER, consisting of parental loss of comfort, companionship and society and healthcare costs associated with the treatment of JANE.
37. JANE DOE's MOTHER and JANE DOE's FATHER experienced great pain and suffering from the time that Defendants' tortious acts and omissions occurred.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs JANE DOE's MOTHER and JANE DOE's FATHER demand judgment for loss of consortium damages, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action.
Dated: March ____, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 2218
Miami, Florida 33160
www.hermanlaw.com
Tel: 305-931-2200
Fax: 305-931-0877
By: ______________________
Jeffrey M. Herman
jherman@hermanlaw.com
Florida Bar No. 521647
Stuart S. Mermelstein
smermelstein@hermanlaw.com
Florida Bar No. 947245
|
|