Doe v. St. Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 16 July 2013
• Docket Number: No. 18912.,18912.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Tim DOE # 1 et al. v. SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER et al.

309 Conn. 146
72 A.3d 929

Tim DOE # 1 et al.
v.
SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER et al.

No. 18912.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 26, 2012.
Decided July 16, 2013.

[72 A.3d 933]

Michael P. Shea, Hartford, with whom were John W. Cerreta, pro hac vice, and, on the brief, Ernest J. Mattei, James H. Rotondo, and Paul D. Williams, Hartford, for the appellant (named defendant).

Stephen D. Ecker, with whom were Douglas Mahoney, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, M. Caitlin S. Anderson, for the appellee (named plaintiff).

ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH and HARPER, Js.^*

[72 A.3d 934]

PALMER, J.

[309 Conn. 149]Beginning in 1964, and continuing for decades, George E. Reardon, a physician, purported to conduct a “child growth study” under the auspices and on the premises of his employer, the named defendant, Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center (hospital). The ostensible purpose of the study was to measure the growth rates of normal children to assist in the treatment of children with abnormally low rates of growth. In fact, Reardon was a pedophile and child pornographer who used the so-called study as a ruse to recruit and sexually exploit hundreds of unsuspecting [309 Conn. 150]children. The named plaintiff, Tim Doe # 1 (plaintiff),¹ was one of those children. He brought this action against the hospital alleging, first, that the hospital negligently had failed to supervise Reardon's activities in connection with the study and, second, that the hospital had breached the special duty of care that it owes to children in its custody.² Following a trial, the jury found for the plaintiff on both claims and awarded him $2,750,000. The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, and, on appeal,³ the hospital raises three claims of instructional impropriety. Specifically, the hospital claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to instruct the jury that it could not hold the hospital liable for Reardon's criminal acts unless it first found that the hospital knew or should have known of Reardon's propensity to sexually abuse children, (2) failed to instruct the jury that the hospital's bylaws do not themselves establish the standard of care, and (3) instructed the jury on the issue of custody in connection with the plaintiff's claim that the hospital breached its special duty of care. We reject these claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts were adduced at trial and are essentially undisputed. The hospital hired Reardon in 1964 as a physician specializing in endocrinology. Immediately upon assuming that position, Reardon began conducting a child growth study out of his office on the hospital's fourth floor. The study was approved [309 Conn. 151]by the hospital's research committee and was funded by the Saint Francis Hospital Association, which awarded Reardon several $750 stipends. According to hospital records, Reardon used this money, as well as money from the hospital's “Endocrinology Research and Education Fund,” to purchase large quantities of film, film processing materials, lenses, lighting equipment, an expensive movie camera, two books on erotica and another book entitled “The Juvenile Homosexual Experience and Its Effect on Adult Sexuality.”

The stated purpose of the study was to collect and analyze data on growth and maturation patterns in healthy children.

[72 A.3d 935]

Unbeknownst to the hospital, however, Reardon's real purpose in establishing and conducting the study was to create a situation in which he could be alone with children so that he could exploit them sexually. Over the course of the study, unwitting parents would drop their children off at the hospital, usually after school, but also on weekends, believing that the children were participating in legitimate medical research. By 1969, several hundred children, including the plaintiff, had participated in the study.

That year, the plaintiff, who was eight years old, and his ten year old sister were recruited for the study by Harold Scully, a family friend and physician at the hospital. The plaintiff's mother thought that participation in the study would be a good experience for her children, who were healthy and had no medical reason to see an endocrinologist, and would help instill in them the value of helping others. She never was informed, however, that, as part of the study, Reardon would be taking explicit photographs of her children and measuring their genitalia. It was her understanding, rather, that Reardon simply would be measuring their limbs and wingspan.⁴ The first time that she brought the children [309 Conn. 152]to Reardon's office, Reardon informed her that his work with them would take time and that she should return in two hours to pick them up. After she left, Reardon led the plaintiff and his sister into an inner office, where he had them undress. Reardon then positioned the plaintiff's sister on the floor and instructed the plaintiff to open her vagina and then her anus with his hand while Reardon took photographs.

The plaintiff saw Reardon three additional times between 1969 and 1972. The second visit was similar to the first, with Reardon photographing the plaintiff and his sister in sexually explicit poses. The third visit occurred in 1971, while the plaintiff was being treated at the hospital for rheumatic fever. Although Reardon was not the plaintiff's physician, the plaintiff recalls that Reardon came to his hospital room and, after talking to a nurse, directed an orderly to take the plaintiff to Reardon's office. The plaintiff has no memory of what transpired at the office, nor is there any indication in the plaintiff's hospital records that Reardon removed the plaintiff from his hospital room at any point in time. The fourth visit occurred in 1972, when the plaintiff was twelve years old. On that occasion, the plaintiff went to Reardon's office without his sister. When he arrived, another boy was there. Reardon took both boys into an examination room where he had them undress. Reardon then masturbated the plaintiff and put his mouth over the plaintiff's penis for approximately one minute. He also measured the plaintiff's penis with a metal instrument. The plaintiff was mortified by the experience and never saw Reardon again. For the next thirty-five years, neither the plaintiff nor his sister told their parents about what Reardon had done to them.

The plaintiff's experience was by no means unique. William Roe,⁵ another one of Reardon's victims, testified [309 Conn. 153]at trial that, in 1967, when he was twelve years old, he and his three brothers were asked to participate in the growth study. He recalls that, on one occasion, his mother dropped him and his brothers off at the hospital. Over the course of several hours, Reardon called each boy into an office, which was set up like a photography studio. When it was Roe's turn, Reardon

[72 A.3d 936]

told him to undress and informed him that “part of the study was to excite [him] to measure [his] growth.” Reardon then fondled Roe's penis until he ejaculated. Later, Reardon photographed all of the boys together, in groups and in pairs.

Another victim, Kevin Hunt,⁶ testified that he was recruited by Reardon to participate in the study in 1970, when he was thirteen years old. Hunt recalled being dropped off at the hospital by his mother. Reardon met him and another boy in the lobby and then escorted them both to his office. For five or six hours, Reardon took photographs of the two boys in various positions. Among other positions, Reardon directed the boys to drape themselves around one another and to engage in simulated sex acts. Reardon also manually manipulated Hunt's penis. When he was done, Reardon drove the boys home. On the way, he stopped at a store and bought each boy a model car.

In 2007, nearly a decade after Reardon's death, the owner of Reardon's former residence discovered, behind a false wall in the basement, between 50,000 and 60,000 photographic slides and 130 films, all containing child pornography. Many of the sexually explicit slides and films depicted children who had been recruited to participate in Reardon's purported growth study. Some of the sexually explicit images were of the plaintiff and his sister.

[309 Conn. 154]Thereafter, approximately 140 individuals filed negligence actions against the hospital seeking damages for the sexual abuse to which Reardon subjected them as participants in the growth study.⁷ Four individuals, including the plaintiff, were selected to participate in an initial consolidated trial. The trial court subsequently granted the hospital's motion to sever the cases. The plaintiff's case was tried first, and, at the conclusion of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,750,000. This appeal followed.

The hospital raises three claims on appeal, all of which pertain to the trial court's jury instructions. The hospital's first two claims concern the propriety of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury as the hospital had requested. Specifically, the hospital contends that the trial court improperly denied its requests to charge, first, that the jury could not find the hospital liable for Reardon's misconduct unless it found that the hospital had actual or constructive knowledge that Reardon was a pedophile and, second, that the hospital's bylaws do not themselves establish the standard of care. The hospital also maintains, with respect to the plaintiff's claim that the hospital breached a special duty of care, that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the issue of custody. We address, and reject, each of these claims in turn.

Before doing so, however, it is useful to clarify what the hospital does not claim on appeal. The hospital does not contend that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient [309 Conn. 155]with respect to any element of either of the...