Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

Maine Supreme Judicial Court · Torts

TortsDutyFiduciary DutyEmotional DistressChurch Autonomynonfeasancespecial relationshipfiduciary duty

Facts

Bryan alleged that Larry Baker, an adult member of the Augusta congregation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, sexually abused him from 1989 through 1992 while Bryan was a teenager living next door to Baker. The church elders allegedly knew Baker had previously molested another minor in the congregation, privately rebuked him, demoted him, temporarily barred him from contact with minors, but did not alert the congregation and later allowed him to resume ordinary church activities. Bryan alleged Baker gained his trust because of Baker's position of leadership and respect in the church, and that Bryan's stepfather, an elder aware of Baker's history, allowed Baker to be alone with Bryan. Bryan sought to hold the church and elders liable for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Issue

Whether a church and its elders owed Bryan a legally cognizable duty to protect him from sexual abuse by another church member based on an alleged fiduciary or special relationship, and whether Bryan could maintain emotional-distress claims premised on the church's handling of Baker within the congregation. The court also considered whether adjudicating those claims would require impermissible inquiry into ecclesiastical matters.

Rule

Absent a special relationship, the law imposes no duty to act affirmatively to protect someone from danger created by a third person. A fiduciary or special relationship must be pleaded with sufficient particularity by alleging specific facts showing actual trust and confidence and a great disparity of position and influence in the context of the events at issue; conclusory allegations are insufficient. A church's decisions regarding member discipline, sanctions, counseling, and internal religious responses cannot themselves form the basis for secular liability when adjudication would require inquiry into ecclesiastical matters.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a synagogue in Portland, Maine, congregational leaders learn that Aaron Levin, an adult member, had previously assaulted a teenager in a private setting unrelated to synagogue activities. Years later, Aaron befriends 15-year-old Noah Stein through the congregation and abuses him at Aaron's apartment; Noah sues the synagogue for failing to warn members or prevent contact.

Which is the strongest argument for dismissing Noah's negligence-based claim against the synagogue?

Explanation. The majority treats this as nonfeasance: mere knowledge that a third person may be dangerous does not itself create a duty to control that person or protect others. Absent a specially pleaded special or fiduciary relationship, and where the organization did not create the danger, no general common-law duty arises to protect members from other members. The court did not announce categorical immunity, strict liability, or a rule turning on formal discipline. (Derived from Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (n.d.).)