Conti
Appeal Hearing-Summary of Watchtower’s Complaint of Errors with Plaintiff's Reply
The following statements were taken from the
Introduction of Respondent’s Brief A136641 -Attorney Richard Simons' response for Plaintiff
Defendants argue that the affirmative duty imposed by
the trial court impinges on their religious freedom. However, it is well
established that a religious organization cannot insulate itself from liability
by designating legally-proscribed conduct as “religious belief.” ---
First, they claim error in the trial court’s refusal
to instruct the jury on the requirements of California’s mandatory child abuse
reporting statute in effect in 1993. The claimed error is actually evidentiary,
not instructional, because defendants contend the refused instruction was
necessary to “correct” expert testimony concerning the mandatory reporting
statute.
Watchtower invited this error by eliciting the
allegedly improper testimony and the Congregation waived it by failing to
object to the testimony. In any event, mandatory reporting responsibilities
were not part of the case and thus the trial court properly instructed the jury
not to consider the statute or the expert’s testimony concerning it in deciding
defendant’s liability.
Defendants claim error in the court’s decision to
exclude plaintiff’s parents and law enforcement agencies from the special
verdict form as potential tortfeasors. However, the evidence was insufficient
to raise a prima facie case of liability as to any of these nonparties.
Finally, Watchtower attacks the punitive damage award.
First, it contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish malice.
Substantial evidence, however, established that Watchtower consciously
disregarded the risk that Kendrick, a known child molester, posed to children
of the Congregation, including plaintiff. Although Watchtower knew child
molesters are difficult to identify and often reoffend, it nevertheless chose
to keep secret from Congregation members the fact that Kendrick had abused a
child in order to protect itself from civil liability. Furthermore, it actually
assigned plaintiff to perform field service with Kendrick.
Second, Watchtower contends the punitive damages were
unconstitutionally excessive. The jury awarded $7,000,000 in compensatory
damages and $21,000,001 in punitive damages, the latter being remitted by the
judge to $8,610,000. The punitive damages were firmly supported by the
reprehensibility of Watchtower’s conduct. They were not based on evidence of
harm to others because no such evidence was admitted; furthermore, the jury was
instructed not to consider any such harm in assessing punitive damages.
Finally, the remitted amount was only three times the
“base level” of compensatory damages as found by the judge (7 AA 1938)—well
within constitutional limits.
Defendants fail to demonstrate any error, much less
prejudicial error. Their selective and highly inaccurate reporting of the facts
along, with their failure to cite relevant and controlling authority, are tacit
admissions that the appeal is without merit. The judgment must be affirmed.
The following list contains the title of each of five
sections as seen in the Respondent’s Brief that were then argued therein.
DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH
PLAINTIFF AND KENDRICK IMPOSED A DUTY TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF; IN ANY EVENT, THEY
COMMITTED ACTUAL MISFEASANCE BY ASSIGNING HER TO FIELD SERVICE WITH KENDRICK.
IMPOSING A DUTY TO WARN DOES NOT VIOLATE
THE CONSTITUTION.
THE INSTRUCTIONS ON DUTY TO WARN, THE
MANDATORY REPORTING STATUTE, AND ALLOCATION OF FAULT TO OTHERS WERE NOT
PREJUDICIALLY ERRONEOUS.
THERE IS NO EVIDENTIARY OR CONSTITUTIONAL
BASIS TO VACATE OR FURTHER REDUCE THE PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD.
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF
COURT PREJUDICES THEIR APPEAL.
