Hawkaw: You appear to be saying that Bryan R could have won this case if he had had better lawyers. Please explain more clearly how that could have been so, in the light of the full opinion set forth below
No. I am not saying better lawyers. What I am saying is the Court needs a writ or statement of claim to be drafted in such a way as to provide specific facts that consitute the alleged relationship. If Bryan R. had provided the specific facts then he may damn well have won. In my mind, Bryan R. opened the door to show legal counsel how to draft a statement of claim to win a summary judgement. Lawyers working in conjuction with advocates like Bill Bowen and others have refined their claims to include the specific facts.
Below, I have provided, underlined and bolded the key sections of the Opinion. Simply put the Supremes indicated "In order to survive a motion to dismiss a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts constituting the alleged relationship with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine whether, if true, such facts could give rise to a fiduciary relationship":
[¶10] The crux of Bryan's claim is that the church, because of analleged special relationship with its members, has a duty to protect its
members from each other, at least when the church and its agents are aware
of a potential danger posed by a member. Because the church elders knew
of Baker's propensity to abuse children, Bryan argues that they had an
independent duty to protect him from Baker.{4} He addresses that duty
through three separate counts. We address each count in turn.
B. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
[¶11] .... In determining whether a duty exists, we must ascertain whether the alleged
wrongdoer is "'under any obligation for the benefit of the particular
plaintiff.'" Trusiani v. Cumberland & York Distribs., Inc., 538 A.2d 258, 261
(Me. 1988) (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of
Torts § 53, at 356 (5th ed. 1984)). [¶17] On the facts alleged in the complaint, we conclude that Bryan
has failed to plead a fiduciary relationship with sufficient particularity, and
we decline to recognize a general common law duty on the part of an
organization such as a church to protect its members from each other.
Accordingly, we do not reach the constitutional issue. [¶18] We begin by addressing the identification of a fiduciary
relationship. Bryan has not provided any support for his assertion that a
religious organization has a fiduciary relationship with its members that
requires it generally to protect those members from other members of the
church who may present a danger. Nor have we ever found a fiduciary
relationship to exist in the circumstances presented here. We recognize, as
have many courts, that it is often difficult to articulate exactly what proof is
required to establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship in particular
circumstances.{9} [¶21] Thus, because the law does not generally require individuals to
act for the benefit of others, the factual foundations of an alleged fiduciary
relationship must be pled with specificity. Simple recitations of a trusting
relationship will not suffice for identifying a fiduciary duty. In order to
survive a motion to dismiss a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff
must set forth specific facts constituting the alleged relationship with
sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine whether, if true,
such facts could give rise to a fiduciary relationship. See Clappison v. Foley,
148 Me. 492, 497, 96 A.2d 325, 328 (1953); see also Gibson v. Brewer, 952
S.W.2d 239, 245 (Mo. 1997) (en banc).
[¶22] The allegations set out in Bryan's complaint do not provide the
"sufficient particularity" required in pleading a fiduciary relationship. See
Ruebsamen, 340 A.2d at 35. Instead, the facts alleged by Bryan as
constituting a fiduciary relationship simply reiterate the basic elements of a
fiduciary relationship. Recitation of those basic elements cannot substitute
for an articulation in the complaint of the specific facts of a particular
relationship. The allegation that Bryan placed "substantial trust and
confidence" in the elders of the church and trusted them "to protect him
and guide him" does not set forth the factual foundations for a special
responsibility on the part of the church. Such vague and nonspecific
allegations are wholly insufficient to make out a claim of a special
relationship between the organization and its members.