For sure, setups where it's a clearer employee / employer relationship and the employee has defined work location and hours are more clear cut.
With the JWs the line between religion and social contact is very blurred. But that's on them too.
Vicarious Liability: Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from religious organisation following sexual assault
by yalbmert99 21 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Fisherman
The liability comes from the employer putting them in a certain position and the person using that position to harm someone.
That depends in the US. Vicarious liability means the act of the agent is the same as the act of the principal which means that the agent must be acting as an agent in some capacity for the principal to be legally responsible.For example, a municipality may not be held liable if a police officer dates a female and harms her. Just because he is a cop doesn’t make all his conduct agency conduct. It may be argued that JW elders have express authority from the WT. But it can also be argued that that authority is limited to a spiritual setting. So an entity is not always legally liable for the conduct of someone that works for them or has been given some authority to act.
-
Fisherman
With the JWs the line between religion and social contact is very blurred. But that's on them too.
For example, in the Candace Conti case WT was found vicariously liable in the supervision of the child during church sponsored activity (in the field ministry) and although the alleged violation occurred outside the activity, the Court ruled that Candace was supposed to be in Field Service at the time and WT appointees failed to supervise her. And decided that WT was liable because WT governs field service according to the ruling. the The rule here is church sponsored activity. Perhaps it may be argued that a JW “gathering” or party may also be deemed as church sponsored if elders are present.
-
ThomasMore
This is not a black and white issue. If for example, a policeman harms someone on his lunch break, the municipality could be included in a civil suit if the policeman was using his authority as a policeman when he hurt someone, even in a small way. Also, if the Dept. knew that he had a propensity for misconduct, they will certainly be named in a civil suit.
As for offending JW elders, often they have used their title and privilege to position themselves so as to hurt a member of the flock. In the case of the 2 elders in Illinois, they were acting in an investigative capacity when they told a little girl and her mother that they should remain silent about the rape she endured by a male member of the congregation. Subsequently, the Service Dept and Legal Dept offered incorrect (and hurtful advice) that allowed the rapist to continue to rape the young girl for 12 more years - that's right - 12 more years.
The court found the elders guilty for not reporting, and it is very interested in the attorney at Watchtower who dispensed incorrect legal advice across state lines. It is likely that he/she will be disbarred and Watchtower will pay dearly ($$$$$) for the incompetence when a civil suit (which is a foregone conclusion) is filed.
I would not be quick to let Watchtower off the hook for the misdeeds of elders and ministerial servants. In each case, it is essential to determine if/how they used their authority in the commission of the offense.
-
Fisherman
a policeman harms someone on his lunch break, the municipality could be included in a civil suit
And even off duty because a police agency has authority to act off duty.
Police also possess credentials and garb and weapons and powers which they can wrongfully use without authority from the municipality but still making the municipality vicariously liable and that is because the principal municipality has entrusted these powers to the agency and assumes the legal responsibility. For example, police don’t leave the gun and the badge and their power and authority at work when they go home. Any time police act under the color of law and any time the principal municipality has not locked away from a police agency any powers or has facilitated any access to such powers the principal is responsible. But let’s say for example that a cop beats his wife or commits another crime that doesn’t involve the use of his powers, it has nothing to do with his agency relationship with the municipality or his legal authority to compel citizens so the principal is not responsible.
In a legal claim against wt involving wrongful conduct by an elder, the claimant would have to prove that the injury resulted from an agency relationship between the wt and elder
-
Corney
Conti case had nothing to do with vicarious liability. I'm not sure the claim that elders in the Illinois case directed the girl and her mother to stay silent is supported by facts. As to the UK case, the connection between the abuser's position and the crime he committed is actually pretty weak and distant so it is for the Supreme Court now to decide whether it is sufficient enough to establish liability. -
Simon
Police also possess credentials and garb and weapons and powers which they can wrongfully use without authority
That's why IMO police should have both better legal protection and more legal accountability
You should face a much higher judgement for killing a police officer and a police officer should face much harsher sentence if they abuse their position.
-
Fisherman
Conti case had nothing to do with vicarious liability.
Seems you don’t understand “vicarious liability” or the Conti case because the Court held WT vicariously liable and WT was ordered to pay damages to Conti.
-
Corney
In that case, Watchtower was vicariously liable for the elders' omissions, not for the abuser's actions, and vicarious liability wasn't a contentious issue at all.
-
Fisherman
That's why IMO police should have both better legal protection and more legal accountability.
Simon,
Nationwide in the US, the police have “qualified immunity” which protects police from being sued or prosecuted when they commit crimes or violate the rights of the public in the course of their duties. This protection comes from SCOTUS and is based on case law from the 1970’s. It is a license to kill and steal. There is no better protection than this. Let’s say for example that cops go to your house and brazenly steal from you, if you sue them or press charges, they can claim immunity. (This has actually happened and they won.) Rarely has a cop been indicted for anything but the city many times pays when sued civilly with a hush order. All that needs to be done is write more summons even bogus ones and laugh. Regarding police accountability, since police are part of the prosecution and work very closely with Courts that doesn’t happen. However, with phone cams and social media publishing irrefutable video evidence of police wrongs, qualified immunity doesn’t fly with public opinion and police are now being held accountable.Some States have revoked qualified immunity because of police bad publicity but it is only a façade to appease the public because immunity is Federal Law from Scotus. Interestingly, according to case law because pd is an agency of the municipality, they are not suable, the city would need to be sued when police causes injury to someone. The city usually pays with a smile but very little and after court costs and legal fees and expenses, it is a waste of time usually.