The factors of the Rowland v. Christian case were applied to arrive at the latest Conti ruling, according to an article entitled 'In Childhood Sexual Abuse Case, California Appellate Court Finds Church has No Duty to Prevent Its Members from Harming Each Other':
"The sole basis for the punitive damages claim was the contention that the defendants failed to fulfill their duty of warning members of the congregation that the Witness had molested a child.
On appeal, the reviewing court found that the alleged duty to warn could not be justified on the basis of a special relationship because there is “no authority for any such broad duty on the part of a church to prevent its members from harming each other.” The court also applied the factors of Rowland v. Christian to determine whether a duty existed..."
www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/in-childhood-sexual-abuse-case-californ-19456/
......
Now take a look at this:
" California Civil Code section 1714 imposes a general duty of ordinary care, which by default requires all persons to take reasonable measures to prevent harm to others.
In the 1968 case of Rowland v. Christian, the court held that judicial exceptions to this general duty of care should only be created if clearly justified based on the following public-policy factors:
*.the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
*.the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
*.the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;
*.the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
*.the policy of preventing future harm;
*.the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
*.and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. "
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care
So, do you think that the Watchtower should have been found to legally have a duty of care, bearing in mind the above-quoted factors?
Or do you think that the appellate court decision was correct?
