I can kind of understand his ruling. Just say that I belonged to a tennis club of which the organisation knew one of the members had been convicted of fraud. Then unbeknown to me I do business with him and he rips me off. That means the tennis club is responsible for not having warned me. Hey it would have been good if they had but it's certainly not an obligation. Imagine if this went through all the law suites that would be popping up.
However it will be interesting to see how this plays out when elders know that if they don't provide adequate supervision to a sex offender then they are liable.