Welcome back to GloriaBlog.com. You will find the VERDICT from our last post at the end of this blog! Here is your new case:
The 12- year- old female victim was sexually abused by a coach who volunteered for a youth sports league in the community. The youth sports league was owned by the local league (LOCAL). LOCAL was owned by the state league (STATE). STATE was owned by the United States national league (NATIONAL). NATIONAL competed internationally in competitions.
The corporate structure was:
NATIONAL – STATE – LOCAL
Each company had its own corporate name, board of directors, tax returns and bank accounts. Each company benefitted financially from the other companies.
NATIONAL benefitted from recruiting youth players from across the country to compete internationally. STATE benefitted from recruiting youth players from across the state to compete in state competitions. LOCAL benefitted from recruiting players from across the local region to compete locally.
If youth players were good enough, they could move up in the entire league structure to compete internationally and perhaps become a professional player or obtain college scholarships. Each organization benefitted financially from the other organization’s income. Each organization advertised the affiliation with the other organization for recruitment of players, who paid to participate in the leagues.
The victim was sexually molested by the adult male volunteer coach. She met the coach through participation in the LOCAL league. The adult groomed the victim during practices with touching, flirting, team participation and volunteer opportunities within the league. Board members of LOCAL knew the adult coach had a troubled history with drugs and alcohol, recently immigrated to the United States so his background could not be checked and had received complaints from parents of the league about the coach regarding his inappropriate sexual behavior. The Board Members did not inform the victim’s parents of these concerns and did nothing to investigate the adult coach or to keep him from gaining access to youth players in the organization. Eventually, the adult coach had sexual relations with the minor after practice and off the premises of the LOCAL organization.
The adult coach was caught and criminally convicted. The minor victim brought a case against LOCAL, STATE and NATIONAL for her sexual abuse. All three affiliates had been sued for sexual abuse of minor youth participants on numerous occasions in the past. Each time, the case was settled requiring a confidentiality agreement that prevented the minors and their parents from disclosing the terms of the settlement.
ISSUE
Were the corporations liable for the victim’s sexual abuse by the adult coach?
VICTIM’S ARGUMENT
The victim argues LOCAL knew or should have known the adult coach was a sexual predator and should have reported him to the police and Sexual Abuse Hotline as required by law if someone is suspected of sexual abuse. The abuse occurred on the fields, during practices and in the furtherance of the work as a coach.
The victim argues that that even though the coach was working only for LOCAL when he sexually abused her, the other companies, STATE and NATIONAL are also responsible because they provided corporate structure, policies and procedures and represented to the public that LOCAL was affiliated with the state and national organizations, providing a sense of legitimacy and safety to parents when signing up their children in the league.
DEFENSES
LOCAL
The local league argues it had only heard rumors about the coach and that the sex had occurred after hours and off the premises. The league also argues the coach’s actions were not done in the course and scope of his work as a coach. It argues the only policy and procedure they had for preventing sexual abuse from STATE was to do background checks on the volunteer coaches, which they could not do because the adult coach was an immigrant.
STATE
The state league argues it has no control over what LOCAL does to prevent sexual abuse. While it does provide guidance, organizational support and funding, it does not have control over who LOCAL allows to be coaches and the only policy and procedure they had for preventing sexual abuse from NATIONAL was to do background checks.
NATIONAL
The national league argues it has no control over what STATE OR LOCAL does to prevent sexual abuse. While it did provide policies and procedures to every league in the country, they had no direct involvement with the state and local leagues and was simply the financial parent corporation with no local management employees.
THE LAW
The law provides, and you must apply the law, that corporations are responsible for the actions of its’ workers if done within the course and scope of their work.
On the issue of whether the corporations are liable for the victim’s sexual abuse by the adult coach, please answer the following:
JURY INSTRUCTIONS:
Negligence
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances.
Violation of Law
Violation of the law requiring LOCAL, STATE AND/OR NATIONAL to report suspected child abuse is evidence of negligence. It is not, however, conclusive evidence of negligence. If you find that defendants violated this law, you may consider that fact, together with the other facts and circumstances, in deciding whether such company was negligent.
Legal Cause
Negligence is a legal cause of injury if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such injury so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the damage would not have occurred.
WHO IS LIABLE? CAST YOUR VOTE BELOW:
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE VERDICT FROM MY LAST BLOG:
Verdict: Medical Malpractice Wrong Side Implant
The virtual jury was unanimous that all three defendants were liable for the cover-up medical malpractice case in which the right side implant was placed in the left knee, and the patient was not told due to a conspiracy to cover it up at the hospital.
You, the jury, found the surgeon, the implant device salesperson and the hospital were all liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries. This is the first unanimous verdict I have tallied in my “A Question of Fact” blog.