Schovanec v. Archdiocese of Oklahoma City
Decision Date | 01 July 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 102,028.,102,028. |
Citation | 188 P.3d 158,2008 OK 70 |
Parties | Phillip SCHOVANEC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Reverend Eusebius J. Beltran, Defendants/Appellees, and David B. Imming, Defendant. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶ 0 Former parishioner brought an action in the District Court for Oklahoma County against his former priest, archbishop, and diocese and alleged claims based upon theories of assault, battery, respondeat superior, vice principal liability, negligent supervision, negligent retention, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The Honorable Bryan Dixon, District Judge, granted summary judgment to the archbishop and the diocese and certified that no reason existed for delaying in filing a final judgment on all claims alleged against these two defendants. Parishioner appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division No. 4, affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Parishioner's petition for certiorari was granted by this Court. We hold that the trial court properly granted judgment on the theories of respondeat superior, vice principal, and fiduciary duty, and other grounds not raised on certiorari, but erred in granting judgment on the negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy theories.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED IN PART REVERSED IN PART AND MATTER REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Douglas D. Wilguess, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Robert W. Nelson, Thomas A. Paruolo, Nelson, Roselius, Terry, O'Hara & Morton, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants/Appellees.
Douglas G. Eason, Lawrence & Eason, P.A., Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants/Appellees.
¶ 1 This case involves an action by a former parishioner against his former priest, archbishop, and diocese based upon allegations of predatory sexual misconduct by the priest against the parishioner and allegations that a former bishop and diocese failed to take appropriate actions against the priest. The District Court's summary judgment for the archbishop and diocese is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The judgment is reversed on claims made by the parishioner where reasonable minds could differ when considering evidentiary material facts relating to issues to be determined by the trier of fact.
¶ 2 In the District Court, Schovanec alleged that when he was a youth he was enticed, induced, directed, and/or coerced by Father Imming, his Roman Catholic priest and youth pastor, to engage in inappropriate conduct and sexual acts. He also alleged that the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City (Archdiocese) knew, or should have been aware, of the priest's history of inappropriate and criminal misconduct, and that the Archdiocese failed to protect the parishioners where the priest was assigned by the Archdiocese. Schovanec's claims are based upon theories of assault, battery, respondeat superior, vice principal liability, negligent supervision, negligent retention, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
¶ 3 The Archdiocese and Archbishop Beltran filed two consecutive motions for summary judgment, which together addressed all of Schovanec's claims against the Archdiocese and the Archbishop.1 Upon sustaining the second motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined that pursuant to 12 O.S. 994 no just reason existed for delay in filing a judgment as to the Archdiocese and Archbishop Beltran. Schovanec appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.
¶ 4 Schovanec sought certiorari in this Court and argued that both the trial and appellate courts incorrectly applied legal principles relating to respondeat superior, negligent supervision, breach of a fiduciary duty, the doctrine of vice principal, and the nature of notice an employer must receive of an employee's predatory sexual conduct before legal liability is created. Schovanec also argued that the trial and appellate courts created a "willful blindness" defense for employers, and impermissibly shifted the duty of supervising clergy employees from the employer/Archdiocese to the parishioners. We granted certiorari and now address the arguments raised by the parties.
¶ 5 Beltran and the Archdiocese argue that respondeat superior may not be used to hold a religious organization liable for an intentional tort by one of its clergy. Respondeat superior is a legal theory that holds an employer liable for the willful torts of an employee acting within the scope of employment in furtherance of assigned duties. N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1999 OK 88, ¶ 14, 998 P.2d 592, 598. In N.H. we stated that predatory sexual conduct by an ecclesiastical officer against a parishioner is an act that occurs outside the scope of the ecclesiastic's employment as a matter of law. Id. at ¶ 17, 998 P.2d at 599.
¶ 6 Although we spoke of sexual predatory conduct as outside the scope of employment as a matter of law, that language was based upon the fact that no reasonable person would conclude that predatory sexual conduct was part of, and in the furtherance of, the ecclesiastical organization's business. Id. Schovanec must show a controversy relating to facts or inferences from facts that predatory sexual conduct occurs in furtherance of this particular ecclesiastical organization's business to make a respondeat superior claim that will survive the summary judgment process. Schovanec argues that "the fact that the abuse in this case occurred as the result of, and during counseling sessions, places Imming's conduct within the scope of employment with the OKC Archdiocese—or at a minimum, creates a question of fact on this issue which must be decided by the jury." (Sept. 13, 2004, response on summary judgment, 15). This Court rejected a similar argument in N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), supra, where we noted that the sexual predator had engaged in sexual abuse during church activities designed to recruit new members, and this fact was insufficient to show either that sexual abuse was fairly and naturally incident to the employer's business or that it occurred to complete the employer's business. Id. 1999 OK 88, ¶¶ 14-18, 998 P.2d 592, 598-600.
¶ 7 In N.H. we noted that the religious organization condemned sexual molestation. Id. at ¶ 16, 998 P.2d at 599. Schovanec does not point to any fact indicating that the particular ecclesiastical denomination involved in this case, or Father Imming as its representative, utilized predatory sexual conduct as a means of advancing the denomination's business. Indeed, Schovanec's submissions of fact indicate that this particular ecclesiastical denomination condemns predatory sexual conduct, and Schovanec points to no fact indicating that such condemnation is a denominational sham. Schovanec points to no fact showing that a particular act of abuse by Father Imming against him furthered a particular denominational/religious goal or religious practice of the Archdiocese or the religion it practices. Schovanec thus does not have an action against Beltran and the Archdiocese based upon respondeat superior. We accordingly affirm the trial court's summary judgment on Schovanec's claim of respondeat superior.
¶ 8 Schovanec argues that the trial and appellate courts did not recognize facts relating to the negligent retention and supervision of Father Imming by Archbishop Beltran and the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese and Archbishop state that they did not know, and did not have reason to know, of any allegations of improper sexual conduct by Father Imming prior to, or during, the time of Schovanec's alleged abuse, 1981-1986. They argue that this lack of knowledge defeats all of Schovanec's claims against them based upon a theory of negligent supervision. They additionally state that prior to 2002 "No layperson ever alleged or complained to the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, its priests and/or Archbishop Beltran that Father Imming engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with minors." (Dec. 1, 2004, motion and brief for summary judgment, 11-12.)
¶ 9 Schovanec argues that the Archdiocese was aware, prior to 1987, that Imming engaged in what the Catholic Church, the Catholic Bishops' Council and Oklahoma law define as sexual abusive conduct. Schovanec points to Imming's alleged conduct in skinny-dipping with minors, mutual back rubs with minors, providing alcohol to minors, allowing minors to stay overnight with him, taking minors on trips, and allowing a minor to live with him as conduct of which the Archdiocese either knew or should have known, and Schovanec argues that this knowledge precludes summary judgment.
¶ 10 Schovanec states that the Archdiocese, by way of its priests and employees, knew that Imming routinely skinny-dipped with unrelated minors, and did so on some occasions without the presence of any other adult. He cited to material from four depositions to show that the Archdiocese knew or should have known of the skinny-dipping. They include (1) a deposition of an adult, C.S., who was raised by Father Imming, (2) a deposition of a priest, Father Bird, (3) a deposition of another priest, Father Ross, and (4) the deposition of Carole Goodwin, a former employee at St. Gregory's in Enid, Oklahoma.2 He also referenced material in other depositions.
¶ 11 When asked if priests in the Archdiocese knew of any skinny-dipping incident involving Father Imming, C.S. responded with "I'm not for sure." O.R. Vol. I, Tab 6, Exhibit 4 at 320-321. He later stated that he was not aware of any conversations about skinny-dipping between Fath...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bosh v. Cherokee Cnty. Bldg. Auth., Case Number: 111037
...P.2d 508. 10. Title 51 O.S. Supp. 2012 §155, see note 8, supra. 11. Okla. Const. art. 2, §30, see note 3, supra. 12. Schovanec v. Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, 2008 OK 70, ¶5, 188 P.3d 158; N.H. v. Presbyterian Church, 1999 OK 88, ¶14, 998 P.2d 592. 13. Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Servic......
-
Boyle v. Asap Energy, Inc.
...and economically operated facility"] ).37 John H. Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof , 13 (3d ed. 1937).38 Schovanec v. Archdiocese of Oklahoma City , 2008 OK 70, ¶¶ 40-41, 188 P.3d 158, 172-173. See also Moran v. City of Del City , 2003 OK 57, ¶ 11, 77 P.3d 588, 591. ("In negligence, t......
-
Nelson v. Enid Med. Assocs., Inc.
...no causal connection between her negligence and plaintiff's injuries, defendant was entitled to judgment.), citing Schovanec v. Archdiocese of Oklahoma City , 2008 OK 70, ¶ 41, 188 P.3d 158, 173, and Iglehart v. Board of County Com'rs of Rogers Cnty , 2002 OK 76, ¶ 15, 60 P.3d 497, 504. See......
-
Graves v. N. E. Servs., Inc.
...571 N.W.2d 332, 340–41 (N.D.1997); Vance v. Consol. R. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 222, 652 N.E.2d 776, 790 (1995); Schovanec v. Archdiocese of Okla. City, 188 P.3d 158, 170–71 (Okla.2008); Dempsey v. Walso Bureau, Inc., 431 Pa. 562, 246 A.2d 418, 419–21 (1968); James v. Kelly Trucking Co., 377 S.......