Gniadek v. Camp Sunshine at Sebago Lake, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011 · Corporations

11 A.3d 308 (2011)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsNegligenceAgencyVicarious Liabilitydutythird-party criminal conductspecial relationshipfiduciary relationship

Facts

Gniadek, a seventeen-year-old camper, attended Camp Sunshine with her mother for one week in September 2005 and met Newton, a volunteer teen counselor. Before that session, a female volunteer had complained that Newton made her uncomfortable by bringing a gift, visiting her room, and inviting her to lunch or ice cream; after the complaint, the Camp spoke with Newton, checked his background and driving history, and learned nothing disqualifying. On Gniadek's last day, Newton gave her a card and gift and obtained contact information through contact lists that included her mother's voluntarily provided information. More than two months after camp ended, when the Camp was not operating and Newton had finished volunteering for 2005, Newton invited Gniadek on a trip to New York and sexually assaulted her at a Connecticut motel.

Issue

Did Camp Sunshine owe Gniadek a duty to protect her from Newton's off-premises sexual assault more than two months after camp ended, either because of a special relationship or because the Camp created the risk by distributing contact lists? Was the Camp vicariously liable because Newton acted with apparent authority when he committed the assault?

Rule

Ordinarily, a person has no duty to protect another from the criminal conduct of a third party, except when a special relationship exists or the actor's own affirmative conduct creates or exposes the other to a recognizable high degree of risk of such misconduct. A fiduciary relationship qualifies as a special relationship only when there is a great disparity of position and influence between the parties, and a custodial relationship exists only while custody is intact and the risk arises within the temporal and geographic scope of that relationship. Apparent-authority-based tort liability applies only when the agent's actions taken with apparent authority themselves constitute the tort or enable the agent to conceal its commission.

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.

Lakeside Hope Retreat, a nonprofit in Vermont, hosts a one-week annual family retreat for teenagers with autoimmune disorders. Nora Ellis, age 16, had attended for four summers with her father and volunteered at two fundraising walks; six weeks after the retreat ended, a volunteer she met there assaulted her during a private outing in New Hampshire.

In Nora's negligence suit against the nonprofit, which argument best supports summary judgment for the nonprofit on duty?

Explanation. A fiduciary relationship counts as a special relationship only when there is a great disparity of position and influence between the parties. Limited annual participation in a program, even one serving a vulnerable minor and providing valuable services, does not by itself establish that level of dominance or influence. The majority rejected duty where the organization's role was limited and not meaningfully different from its relationship with other participants.