In Conti v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (filed 4/13/15, A136631), the California Court of Appeal, First District, reversed an award of $8 million in punitive damages, on the ground that a Jehovah’s Witnesses’ congregation and church leaders had no duty to warn members of the congregation (known as Witnesses) that another member had previously molested a child. The Conti case had drawn attention for the jury’s award of $28 million in damages ($7 million in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages) — at the time, the largest verdict for a single victim of childhood sexual abuse against a religious organization. Punitive damages were later reduced on a post-trial motion to $8 million. With the Conti decision, the award of punitive damages was eliminated completely, the Court of Appeal finding that a church has no duty to prevent its members from harming each other.
The plaintiff in Conti sued her abuser, the Witness, her former congregation, and the Watchtower (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ corporation), contending that the Watchtower’s policies permitted the Witness to molest her repeatedly during church-sponsored activities over a two-year period. The Witness had admitted to his congregation’s elders that he had sexually abused his stepdaughter. Although the elders informed the Watchtower, the Watchtower did not notify the police or warn the congregation. With respect to the punitive damages claim, the plaintiff argued that the Watchtower acted despicably and with conscious disregard for the safety of others by maintaining a “secrecy policy” as to child sexual abusers, despite knowing of their high recidivism. Like other lawsuits against Jehovah’s Witnesses, the plaintiff in Conti relied on Watchtower publications issued in the late 1980s to 2000s as evidence that the Watchtower directed elders to keep cases of child abuse secret from the congregations and law enforcement. The sole basis for the punitive damages claim was the contention that the defendants failed to fulfill their duty of warning members of the congregation that the Witness had molested a child.
On appeal, the reviewing court found that the alleged duty to warn could not be justified on the basis of a special relationship because there is “no authority for any such broad duty on the part of a church to prevent its members from harming each other.” The court also applied the factors of Rowland v. Christian to determine whether a duty existed. The court concluded that the burden that the duty to warn would create, and the adverse social consequences that the duty would produce, outweighed its imposition. Finding that such a burden would be unworkable, the court remarked: “The burden would be considerable because the precedent could require a church to intervene whenever it has reason to believe that a congregation member is capable of doing harm, and the scope of that duty could not be limited with any precision.” The Conti Court nonetheless upheld the compensatory damages award on the ground that the congregation and Watchtower failed in their duty to supervise the Witness and protect the plaintiff during their field service (a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community).
Although the privilege for penitential communications did not apply to the Witness’s revelation that he had molested his stepdaughter, in that such was revealed in the presence of a third party, the court did discuss the relevance of the rule of confidentiality of penitential communications. The court found that the public policy in favor of protecting confidentiality militated against imposition of a duty to inform congregations of such communications. That California’s Evidence Code expressly states the extent of the privilege is not an appropriate subject for legislation was also persuasive to the Conti Court, which cautioned other courts of intruding on this privilege.
California courts have consistently held that religious organizations do not have a special relationship with their congregation members, including minors, merely by virtue of their membership in the religion. Conti is significant for religious organizations and their counsel defending against childhood sexual abuse claims because the case reaffirms this rule, and specifically holds that a church has no duty to prevent its members from harming each other.
This document is intended to provide you with information about appellate law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.