Insurance
Jun. 10, 2015
Expand scope of duty to protect against child predators
California courts have refused to find a duty to protect absent both a "special relationship" with the plaintiff and "actual knowledge" of the perpetrator's dangerous propensities.
Rachel E. Hobbs
Associate
Selman Breitman LLP
11766 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles , CA 90025
Email: rhobbs@selmanlaw.com
UCLA SOL; Los Angeles CA
Recently, there has been a flurry of child sex abuse suits against organizations from churches to youth sports organizations. While plaintiffs often sue for a failure to protect the child, California courts have refused to find a duty to protect absent both a "special relationship" with the plaintiff and "actual knowledge" of the perpetrator's dangerous propensities. Although California courts have not yet applied these principles to national yout...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In