Molestation Victim Sues Boy Scouts and Mormon Church

In 1977, NK was a 12-year-old boy living in Washington. NK and his family belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). The church sponsored Boy Scout troops and encouraged boys to join the Boy Scouts.

The church accepted as a Scout leader a newly-arrived man named Dusty Hall, who also went by the name Dusty Rhodes. Although he never officially registered with Boy Scouts of America, parents thought of Hall as the scoutmaster. Hall held scout meetings every week. He held some meetings in the gym, and some in the church’s scouting cabin. Hall also took the scouts on camping trips and helped them get their merit badges.

According to NK, Hall began sexually molesting him in the early summer of 1977, about a week after they met. The first two incidents occurred at NK’s home. NK testified that the only reason he ever let Hall into his house when his parents were not there “was because he was one of our Scout leaders.” The third incident occurred during a troop sleepover at Hall’s apartment. Other incidents occurred during scouting campouts, in the church scout cabin after scout meetings, in Hall’s car in the church parking lot, or at Hall’s workplace. In all, Hall allegedly molested NK 20 to 30 times, approximately on a weekly basis.

Hall also allegedly molested at least two of NK’s fellow scouts during scouting events and sleepovers. One scout who was not molested stopped participating because Hall made his family feel uncomfortable.

On a Sunday at the end of the summer, Hall’s fiancée learned from her six-year-old son that Hall had molested him. She reported the abuse to the bishop the same day. The bishop told her not to call the police and that he would “take care of it.”  Hall gathered his things from her home and left town the same night. The bishop tried to contact Hall, but Hall could not be located and never returned.

The bishop held a meeting with the parents of the scouts and asked them to discuss Hall with their sons. Questioned by his parents and then by the bishop, NK denied that Hall had molested him. He did not tell friends or siblings about it either.

Years later he sued the Boy Scouts and the Mormon church.

The Boy Scouts and the church both argued that they did not possess prior knowledge that Hall posed a threat to boys, and therefore could not be liable. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claims. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed as to the church, but upheld the dismissal of the Boy Scouts.[1]

The Court of Appeals’ analysis hinged on whether the defendants had a special relationship with either N.K. or Hall.

A duty to protect another from sexual assault by a third party may arise

1)     where the defendant has a special relationship with the third party which imposes a duty to control the third person’s conduct, or

2)     where the defendant has a special relationship with the victim which gives the molestation victim a right to protection.

The requirement for prior specific knowledge of the third person’s dangerous propensities applies to the first type of special relationship – a relationship with the third party. But, prior specific knowledge does apply not the second type of special relationship – one with the victim.

Special relationship with the third party.

Hall never registered with BSA, and there is no evidence BSA was aware of his existence, let alone that he posed a threat. There is, however, evidence that the church was aware of Hall’s dangerous propensities.

There was conflicting evidence as to the church’s prior knowledge. The church claims that it did not have any negative information about Hall until just before he left town.  However, there is also evidence to support an inference that the church knew about Hall’s misconduct for weeks or months before taking action. The trial court should have let a jury decide this genuine issue of material fact.

Special relationship with the victim.

A special relationship with the victim is protective. Examples include schools instructed with the care of pupils and vulnerable adults in assisted living facilities. The existence of a duty predicated on a protective relationship requires knowledge only of the general field of danger – not prior knowledge of a specific threat.  A sexual assault is legally foreseeable “as long as the possibility of sexual assaults … was within the general field of danger which should have been anticipated.”[2]

The general field of danger was that scouts would be sexually abused if a stranger newly arrived in town was permitted to supervise them one-on-one in isolated settings.

The Court of Appeals held that the relationship between the LDS church and NK was a protective special relationship giving rise to a duty to protect him from foreseeable harms. Scouting was part of the church youth program. The church selected the scoutmasters and adult volunteers. The church chapel was the registered meeting place for the troop. The church actively encouraged children of the congregation to participate in scouting, and it paid for the boys’ participation in the troop. NK’s mother testified that the reason she let her son spend time alone with Hall was “because the church held him out as a youth leader who could be safely trusted with our children.”  The church owned a scouting cabin where the boys participated in meetings and scouting activities, away from the custody and protection of their parents. NK testified that Hall sometimes brought him to the cabin outside of meeting times and molested him there. Hall also molested him after scout meetings.

Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has long known of sexual abuse occurring in scouting. The majority of the files of ineligible volunteers maintained by BSA since 1920 include allegations of pedophilia and “perversion” by adult volunteers.  But unlike the church, BSA did not control on-the-ground day-to-day operations of the troop. Without such control, the Court reasoned that BSA was not in a position to protect from physical danger. In addition, even though the church allowed Hall to act as scoutmaster – the church never registered Hall with BSA.  Perhaps Boy Scouts of America would have screened Hall out – if they had known about him.

Like any injury claim, a claim of child sexual abuse must be brought within the statute of limitations. The Washington statute of limitations for child molestation is complicated and nuanced. If you believe you have such a claim, seek a confidential case analysis from a personal injury attorney.

By personal injury attorney Travis Eller