Steed v. Grand Teton Council

• Citation: 172 P.3d 1123,144 Idaho 848
• Decision Date: 30 November 2007
• Docket Number: No. 33272.,33272.
• Parties: Adam Paul STEED, an individual, and Benjamin Paul Steed, an individual, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. GRAND TETON COUNCIL OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. and Boy Scouts of America, a corporation; Bradley Grant Stowell, an individual; Judith Stowel, an individual; Carl Bradford Allen, an individual; Jim Summers, an individual; C. Hart Bullock, an individual; Elias Lopez, an individual; Kim A. Hansen, an individual; Robert Fawcett, an individual; and John Doe individuals I through V; and John Doe Corporations I through V, Defendants.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

172 P.3d 1123

144 Idaho 848

Adam Paul STEED, an individual, and Benjamin Paul Steed, an individual, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. GRAND TETON COUNCIL OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. and Boy Scouts of America, a corporation; Bradley Grant Stowell, an individual; Judith Stowel, an individual; Carl Bradford Allen, an individual; Jim Summers, an individual; C. Hart Bullock, an individual; Elias Lopez, an individual; Kim A. Hansen, an individual; Robert Fawcett, an individual; and John Doe individuals I through V; and John Doe Corporations I through V, Defendants.

No. 33272.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Pocatello, October 2007 Term.

November 30, 2007.

Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Boise, for appellant. Gary T. Dance argued.

Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey Chartered, Pocatello, for respondents. Mitchell W. Brown argued.

EISMANN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying in part the appellant's motion for summary judgment. Because the trial court's decision involved legal issues of first impression regarding the liability of a corporation for the tort of injury to a child under Idaho Code § 6-1701(4), we granted an interlocutory appeal to address those issues of law. We do so, vacate the order denying the motion for summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Plaintiffs, Adam and Benjamin Steed, filed this action on February 24, 2005. They alleged that in 1997 they were sexually molested by Bradley Stowell while at a boy scout camp operated by Grand Teton Council of the Boy Scouts of America (Grand Teton Council). They brought the action against Boy Scouts of America, Grand Teton Council, Stowell, and others. The Steeds sought to recover for assault and battery, false imprisonment, negligence per se, and negligence. This appeal involves only the claims against Grand Teton Council.

Grand Teton Council moved to dismiss the complaint as to it on the ground that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations in Idaho Code § 5-219. The district court held that all of the Steeds' claims were barred by the statute of limitations except for claims that could be brought under Idaho Code § 6-1701. That statute creates four tort causes of action in child abuse cases. They are: (1) lewd conduct as defined in Idaho Code § 18-1508; (2) sexual abuse of a child as defined in Idaho Code § 18-1506; (3) sexual exploitation of a child as defined in Idaho Code § 18-1507; and (4) injury to a child as defined in Idaho Code § 18-1501. An action under any of those four causes of action may be maintained within five years after the child reaches the age of eighteen years. I.C. § 6-1704. The complaint in this case was filed within five years of when the Steeds each turned eighteen.

The district court held that the Steeds' cause of action under Idaho Code § 6-1701(4) was not barred by the statute of limitations. Grand Teton Council asked this Court to grant an interlocutory appeal in order to address three issues: (1) Does this Court's opinion in Osborn v. Salinas, 131 Idaho 456, 958 P.2d 1142 (1998), bar recovery against Grand Teton Council?; (2) Can a corporation be liable in damages for the tort of injury to a child as defined in Idaho Code § 6-1701(4)?; and (3) Can a non-profit corporation be liable for damages? This Court granted an appeal from that interlocutory order to address issues of law relevant to the district court's decision.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Does this Court's opinion in Osborn v. Salinas, 131 Idaho 456, 958 P.2d 1142 (1998), bar recovery against Grand Teton Council?

2. Can a corporation be liable for the tort of injury to a child as it is defined in Idaho Code § 18-1501?

3. Can a nonprofit corporation be held liable for damages?

4. Would the payment of compensation to the Steeds while they were at the Boy Scout camp prevent them from being in the care or custody of the Grand Teton Council?

5. Did the district court err in denying Grand Teton Council's motion for summary judgment?

III. ANALYSIS

A. Does this Court's Opinion in Osborn v. Salinas, 131 Idaho 456, 958 P.2d 1142 (1998), Bar Recovery Against Grand Teton Council?

In Osborn v. Salinas, 131 Idaho 456, 958 P.2d 1142 (1998), the plaintiff, Osborn, was a former high-school student who attended Centennial High School in Meridian School District No. 2. during the years 1989 through 1991. On December 13, 1995, Osborn filed a lawsuit contending that while she was attending the high school one of her teachers named Salinas sexually abused her. She sought to recover damages against the teacher, the high school, the school district, and the local board of education. She asserted claims under state law and under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983).

The school district moved for summary judgment on the grounds that her alleged state law claims were barred by the failure to give timely notice of tort claim as required by Idaho Code § 6-906A and that her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was barred by the statute of limitations. The district judge granted the school district's motion for summary judgment, and the former student appealed.

At the time of the alleged sexual assaults, Idaho Code § 6-906A required Osborn to present and file a notice of tort claim against the school district within 120 days after she reached age eighteen.¹ She turned eighteen on February 9, 1991, but did not file a timely notice of tort claim. She argued on appeal that where Idaho Code § 6-1704 provided that the statute of limitations for certain torts committed against children did not expire until five years after the child reached age eighteen, this Court should use that statute by analogy to extend the time period for giving notice of tort claim under Idaho Code § 6-906A. This Court rejected that argument and concluded the discussion with the following statement:

Furthermore, I.C. § 6-1704 sets a time limit within which to file an action, not to file notice of a tort claim. Even if it were intended to toll the time in which minors must give notice of their claims, the statute applies to the perpetrators of sexual abuse and does not govern claims against third parties.

Grand Teton Council seizes upon the last sentence in the above-quoted statement from the Osborn v. Salinas opinion and asserts that it cannot be held liable as a third party who did not commit the alleged sexual abuse. The district court held that the statement was dicta and disregarded it. Both of them failed to correctly analyze the statement in the context in which it was made.

Idaho Code § 6-1701 creates four tort causes of action in child abuse cases, defining them by incorporating criminal statutes by reference. It provides:

An action may be brought by or on behalf of any child against any person who has:

(1) Wilfully and lewdly committed any lewd or lascivious act or acts upon or with the body or any part or member of a child under the age of sixteen (16) years as defined in section 18-1508, Idaho Code; or

(2) Sexually abused any child as defined in section 18-1506, Idaho Code; or

(3) Sexually exploited any child for a commercial purpose as defined in section 18-1507, Idaho Code; or

(4) Injured a child as defined in section 18-1501, Idaho Code.

This civil cause of action exists independently of any criminal action commenced pursuant to chapter 15, title 18, Idaho Code. A civil action may be pursued under the provisions of this chapter even if a criminal prosecution is not pursued.

As stated in Osborn v. Salinas, the statute does not create vicarious liability for the conduct of another. It grants a civil cause of action "against any person who has" committed the defined acts. The issue in the present case is whether Grand Teton Council is liable for the tort of injury to a child under Subsection (4) of Idaho Code § 6-1701. That cause of action was not alleged in Osborn v. Salinas.

Osborn's complaint was divided into two counts. Count I was entitled "Negligent and/or Intentional Torts." With respect to Salinas, it alleged, "Defendant Oscar Salinas was guilty of negligent and/or willful assault, battery, and sexual assault on Michelle Osborn, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress." The only allegation in Count I that implicated the school district was the allegation that as Salinas's employer it was vicariously liable for his conduct. The complaint alleged, "At all times mentioned Defendant Oscar Salinas was a teacher employed by Defendant School District as a teacher and coach, and during the events which are complained of, he was acting both within and outside the course of his employment as a teacher."

Count II of the complaint was entitled, "Violation of Civil Rights." It stated a negligence claim against the high school, but did not expressly mention the school district. It alleged, "Defendant Centennial High School negligently failed to investigate Oscar Salinas' behavior and to take steps to remedy the behavior or to terminate Mr. Salinas' employment within the school, or to protect Michelle Osborn." The only claim alleged in Count II regarding the school district was an allegation that it was vicariously liable for the negligence of the high school. In Count II, Osborn re-alleged the allegations in Count I, including that "[a]t all times mentioned Centennial High School was and is now a public high school within and operated by Meridian School District No. 2." Thus, the only allegations against the school district in Osborn v. Salinas were based upon imputing liability to it for the conduct of its employee Salinas and its high school. There was no allegation of any liability against the school district under Idaho Code § 6-1701.

At best, the complaint in Osborn v. Salinas alleged a cause of action against Salinas under subsections (1) and (2) of Idaho Code § 6-1701. As to those causes of action, "the statute applies to the perpetrators of sexual abuse and does...