BishopAccountability.org
	Richard Meehan: Church Cases a Template for Penn State Suits By Richard Meehan Norwich Bulletin November 27, 2011 http://www.norwichbulletin.com/Opinion/x1293129632/Richard-Meehan-Church-cases-a-template-for-Penn-State-suits#axzz1euRvvaPJ The evil allegedly perpetrated by Penn State ex-coach Jerry Sandusky has done more than tarnish a sterling football program's reputation and brought down its iconic coach. What will most assuredly follow is a score of lawsuits, not unlike those involving the Roman Catholic Church. Sandusky will be the central target, and the history of the legion of successful cases targeting the church suggests the financial fallout will be substantial. While Sandusky will be the target, lawyers representing plaintiffs will be looking to the deeper, institutional pockets for compensation for these victims. The church cases provide the roadmap. Sexual abuse is a civil wrong (or tort, as the law describes it) as well as being a crime. For civil liability purposes, it's referred to as an intentional tort. The victim is entitled to a panoply of potential damages, including, in many instances, punitive damages. The dilemma for victims of intentional torts is how to collect those damages. There is a significant difference for insurance indemnity purposes between intentional torts and negligent torts. One can insure against the possibility of a claim for negligence and be indemnified by an applicable insurance policy. In most instances, insurance will not indemnify someone sued for an intentional act. In the instance of sexual abuse lawsuits, there is generally no insurance policy to cover the verdicts or effectuate a settlement. For that reason, if Sandusky acted alone, without any tolerance of his actions by the university, the victims would be left with a limited fund to pursue consisting of whatever Sandusky assets could be marshaled. In most instances, the victories would be hollow, and the victims would go uncompensated. In the church cases, lawyers argued that the institutional defendant — the church — knew of the predilections of its deviate priests and tacitly condoned those actions by failing to remove them from parishes or warn potential victims of past wrongs. Generally, an employer is not responsible for the intentional wrongs of its agents, servants or employees unless the employer has past knowledge of those tendencies and has condoned such conduct in the past. If that is established, the doctrine of respondeat superior, otherwise known as vicarious liability, applies; that is, the employer is now held responsible for the victim's damages. Thus, in the Penn State cases, the University was put on notice of Sandusky's alleged tortious conduct when Michael McQueary reported the alleged locker room rape of a 10-year-old. Once the report was made known, the University became obliged to investigate the allegation, and if proven to have substance, then it triggered the further responsibility to eliminate the risk to other victims. Instead, it has been reported that Sandusky received mild sanctions and was permitted continued access to the campus' sports facilities to run his youth programs. If all of this is proven true, the university and its administrators may become responsible to indemnify the victims of any proven sexual abuse. The church cases demonstrate that the settlements and verdicts will amount to millions of dollars.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.