Th is op inion is sub j ect to rev ision b efore final p u b lication in th e Pacific Rep orter
2014 UT 2
322 P.3d 712

I N T H E 

## S U P R E M E 

## C O U R TO FT H E 

## S T AT E O F 

## U T A H

K A RE E NA M A CG RE G O R , Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.
D O UG L AS W A L KE R

, indiv idually and in his official capacity as Bishop of the Willow Canyon 4 t h War d, S andy Utah East S take of the Chur ch of Jesus Chr ist of Latter -Day S aints; C O R PO R AT I O N O F
T H E P RE S I D E N

T O F T H E C H U R C H O F J E S US C H RI S T O F L A T T E R-D A

Y S A I N TS, a Utah cor por ation sole et al.; Defendants and Appellees.

No. 20120452 Filed Januar y 28, 2014

Thir d Distr i ct, S alt Lake The Honor able Glen K. Iwasaki No. 080906065

Attor n eys: William M. Fontenot, Bountiful, for appellant L. Rich Humphr eys, Kar r a J. Por ter , Alexander Dushku, Justin W. S tar r , S alt Lake City, for appellee

J UST I C E P A RRI S H

author ed the opinion of the Cour t, in which C H I E F J US T I C E D U RR A NT, A SS O C I AT E C H I E F J US T I C E N E H RI N G, J US T I C E D U R

HA M , and J US T I C E L E E joined.

J UST I C E P A RRI S H, opinion of the Cour t: ¶1 We ar e asked to d ecide whether a chur ch’s cr eation of a help line for the benefit of its cler gy giv es r i se to a duty to par ishioner s who counsel with cler gy

. S p ecifically, we ar e asked to deter

mine w hether
, pur suant to section 323 of the Restatement (S econd) of Tor ts, the Chur ch of Jesus Chr ist of L a tter -day S aints (LDS Chur ch

or C hu r c h) and its cler gy v oluntar ily assumed a duty to aid abuse

v ictims by v ir tue of its “Help Line.” This pr ofessionally staffed Help Line pr ov ides Chur ch cler gy who become awar e of an abusiv e situation with i nfor mation about legal duties and c ounseling options. We conclude that the Chur ch’s cr eation of the Help LineM A CG RE G O R v. W A L KE R Opinion of the Cour t

d i d not giv e r ise to such a duty because, r egar dless of whether t h e Chur ch v oluntar ily under took to r ender a ser v i ce t o abuse v i ctims by v ir tue of the Help Line, a cler gy member ’s failur e to use the Help Line does not incr ease a v ictim ’ s r isk of h ar m. Mor eov er , public policy disfav or s the imposition of a duty wher e it would discour age

or ganizations fr o m p r ov iding ser v ices that may ultimately benefit

v ictims of abuse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. THE CHURCH’SHELP LINE ¶2 I n 1 995, the Chur ch established the Help Line, a 1

- 8 0 0 number that bishops a nd ot he r Chur c h cler gy can call when they become awar e of possible abuse. The Help Line is av ailable 24 hour s

a d ay, 365 days a y e a r a n d is staffed by legal and c ounseling pr ofessionals who “pr ov ide guidance to the b ishop on how to pr otect the [v ictim] fr om f ur ther abu s e , a n d how to d eal with the complex emotional, psy c h o l o gical, and l egal issues that must be addr essed in or d er to pr otect the v ictim.” In some c ases, attor neys

ar e also av ailab le to “adv ise bishops on legal issues to ensur e compliance with r epor ting statutes.” ¶3 The Help Line is av a ilable only to Chur c h ecclesiastical leader s. Help L i ne employees n either lear n the names of potential

v ictims, nor do they communicate with the v ictims. In cases wher e Chur ch l eader s use t h e H elp Line, they still hav e the discr etion to pr oceed as they believ e appr opr iate under the cir cumstances.
II. MACGREGOR’S ALLEGATIONSAGAINS T T HE CHURCH DEFENDANTS A. MacGregor’s Relationship with Her Teenage Neighbor and

Interactions with Clergy ¶4 Beginning at the age of twelv e and continuing unti l a g e fifteen, Kar eena MacGr egor engaged in r eg u l a r s e x u a l t o u c h i n g w i t h her neighbor Matthew, who w a s f our year s older than she. MacGr egor ’s pa r ents, Matthew’s par ents, and the police each became awar e of M a c G r egor and Matthew’s r elationship. W hen MacGr egor was either four teen or f ifteen, she a lso met and became sexually inv olv ed with Gr egor y, who was sev enteen at the time. 1

1 In S eptember 2002, at the age of fifteen, MacGr egor gav e bir th
to Gr egor y’s baby in her home. MacGr egor alleged that she did not know she was pr egnant until after giv ing bir th. The b a by died after (continued...)

2Cite as: 2014 UT 2 Opinion of the Cour t
¶5 Dur ing this time fr ame, MacGr egor a l l e ges that she met and counseled with her a nd Matthew’ s L D S bishop, Douglas Walker
, on two separ ate occasions. 2 MacGr eg o r a ll egedly told Walker that she wanted the r elationship with Matthew to stop and that she wanted to r epent. Accor d ing to MacGr egor , W alker told h er to pr ay, r ead h er scr iptur es, and stop s eeing M a t t he w

. MacGr egor n e v e r i nf o r m e d W a l k e r o f h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p with Gr egor y. Walker w a s a w ar e of the Help Line and h ad used i t on other occasions, but he did not call the Help Line “about any issue relating to [MacGr egor ].” B. MacGregor’s Personal Injury Suit Against the Church Defendants ¶6 In Apr il 2008, MacGr egor filed a per sonal injur y suit against Walker
, the Chur ch (collectiv ely the Chur c h De f e ndants), and sev er al other defendants. 3 MacGr egor initial l y pr emised her claim against the Chur ch Defenda n t s on the theor y that Walker owed her a duty of car e based on h e r s t a t u s as a member of his congr egation and that Walker negligently failed to r epor t the abuse

as r equir ed by Utah Code section 62A-4a-4 0 3(3)(a) ( Repor ting S tatute). S he also alleged that the Chur ch was v icar iously l iable f or Walker ’s negligent conduct under the doctr ine of r espondeat super ior

. ¶7 The Chur ch Defendants mov ed for summar y judgme nt , asser ting that they owed no duty to MacG r e gor

. S pecifically, they

ar gued that the Repor ting S tatute i mpos e s c r i minal penalties only and does not giv e r ise to a duty that would suppor t a negligence claim. The Chur ch Defendants also ar gued that ther e is no “special

r elationship” between a chur ch and its member s that would impose

on i t a duty to pr otect its member s against the cr i minal acts of thir d par ties. In r esponse, MacGr egor disclaimed any suggestion that the Chur ch’s duty ar ose by v ir tue of the Repor ting S tatute or a s pecial

1 ( ...continued) MacGr egor put him i n a window w e l l. S ee State ex rel. K.M. for a

mor e thor ough r ecitation of the fact s s u r r ounding MacGr egor ’s pr egnancy and the baby’s death. 2007 UT 93, 173 P.3d 1279.

2 In their motion for summar y judgment, Walker and the Chur ch denied that W alker had any knowledge of the abuse, b u t they assumed knowledge solely for summar y judgment pur p oses.

3 MacGr egor also named Gr egor y, Matthew, Matthew’s par ents and br other
, Deser et Memor ial Inc., and Holbr ook Funer al Chapel Inc. as defendants in the suit.

3M A CG RE G O R v. W A L KE R Opinion of the Cour t

r elationship b etween the Chur ch and its member s. Instead, she

ar gued that
, b y cr eating the Help Line, the Chur c h v oluntar i ly under took a duty to h elp MacGr egor and all other Chur ch member s who ar e v ictims of child abuse. S he fur ther a lleged that Walker br eached that d uty by fa i l i ng to call the Help Line r egar ding her

case. ¶8 Because MacGr egor did not r aise this v oluntar y under taking theor y in her complaint, the d i s t r ict cour t f ound the c laim was not pr oper ly p led. But it nev er theless chose to addr ess the claim “in

an effor t to decide the matter on its mer its r a ther than a tec h n icality.” After consider ing supplem e n t a l br i efing r egar ding the Help Line, the distr ict cour t gr anted summar y judgment in fav or of the Chur ch Defendants. In gr anting summar y judgment, t h e d istr ict

cour t did not r ely on t he v oluntar y under taking theor y; instead it

r easoned that the Chur ch D efendants wer e immune fr om suit under the Fir st Amendment of the U.S . Constitution. ¶9 MacGr egor appeals the dismissal of her claims against the Chur ch Defendants. S he contends that the C h u r ch v oluntar i ly assumed a d uty by vir tue of the Help L ine and that the distr ict cour t

er r ed in concluding that the Ch ur c h was immune fr om suit under the Fir st Amendment. W e do not r each the issue of Fir st Amendment immunity because we find that ev en if the Chur c h Defendants

v oluntar ily under took to r ender a ser v ice to MacGr egor by v i r tue of the Help Line, the existenc e of the Help Line did not incr ease M a cGr egor ’s r isk of har m. We hav e jur isdiction pur suant to U t a h Code section 78A-3-102(3)(j).

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶10 “The deter mination of whether a legal duty exists falls to the cour t. It is pur ely a legal question” and is ther efor e r ev iewed de nov o. Yazd v. Woodside Homes Corp. , 2006 UT 47, ¶ 14, 143 P.3d 283.

ANALYSIS ¶11 An e ssential element of ev er y negligence action is the existence of a duty of car e owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. 4

4 In addition to establishing a duty, a plaintiff must also establish “(2) that the defendant br eac hed that duty, (3) that the b r each of duty was the pr o x i ma t e cause of the plaintiff’s injur y, and (4) that the plaintiff in fact suffer ed injur i e s o r d amages.” Torrie v. Weber (continued...)

4Cite as: 2014 UT 2 Opinion of the Cour t
Jeffs ex rel. B.R. v. West, 2012 UT 11, ¶ 5, 275 P.3d 228; see also Young

v. Salt Lake City Sch. Dist. , 2002 U T 6 4 , ¶ 12, 52 P.3d 1230 (“Absent

a s h owing that the defendant owed any du t y , the plaintiff’s c laim has no me r it

. . . .”). A duty exists wher e defendant has “an obligation, to which the l a w w i l l giv e r ecognition and effect, to confor m to a par ticular standar d of conduct towar d a nother .” AMS Salt I ndus., Inc. v. Magne sium Corp. of Am. , 942 P.2d 315, 3 21 (Utah 1997) ( q u oting W. P A G E K E E T O N E T A L

. , P ROSS E R A ND K E E T O N O N TH E L A W O F T O R

TS § 53 (5th ed. 1984)). ¶12 In mo s t situations, tor t law imposes a gener al duty to

exer cise reasona b l e c a r e to minimize the r isk of har m fr om one’s actions. D A N B. D O B B S, T H E L A W O F T O R TS § 2 5 1 ( 2d ed. 2011). But

a per son or dinar i ly has no a ffir mativ e duty to act to “pr otect another fr om har m,” unless an exception applies. Gilger v. Hernandez , 2000 UT 23, ¶ 15, 997 P.2d 3 05. Her e, MacGr egor ar gues that the Chur ch Defendants owed her an affir mativ e duty to act u nder section 323 of the Restatement (S econd) of Tor ts. S ection 323 pr ov ides:

On e w ho under takes, gr atuitously or for consider

ation, to r end e r ser v ices to another which he should

r ecognize as n ecessar y for the pr otection of the other ’s per son or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical har m r esul t ing fr om his failur e to exer cise

r easonable c a r e to per for m his under taking, if (a) his failur e to exer cise such car e incr eases the r isk of such har m, or (b) the har m is suffer ed because of the other ’s

r eliance upon the under taking. ¶13 We adopted section 323 in DCR Inc. v. Peak Alarm Co. , 663 P.2d 433, 436 (Utah 1 983), b ut we later explained that “the natur e of this rule requir es the Cour t to nar r owly constr ue the s c ope of any assumed duty.” Weber ex rel. Weber v. Springville City, 725 P.2d 1360, 1364 (Utah 1 986). T her efor e, to establish a negligence c laim based on

a theor y o f v oluntar y under taking under section 323, MacGr egor must s h o w (1) that the Chur ch, by m eans of the Help Line, under

took to r ender a ser v ice to her ; and (2) that the Chur ch Defendants failed to exer c i s e r easonable car e in their administr a tion of the Help Line, ther eby either incr easing MacGr egor ’s r isk of har m or c ausing Ma c G r egor ’s har m thr ough her reliance on the Help Line. We do

4 ( ...continued) C n ty

. , 2 013 UT 48, ¶ 9, 309 P.3d 216 (inter nal quotation mar ks omitted).

5M A CG RE G O R v. W A L KE R Opinion of the Cour t

not r each the mer its of the par ties’ r espectiv e ar guments under the fir st pr ong of section 323 because w e conclude that MacGr egor has
not met her bur den under the second pr ong. We also conclude that public policy does not suppor t the i mposition of a duty in this case. We ther efor e affir m the distr i ct c our t’s or d er gr anting the Chur ch Defendants’ motion for summar y judgment.

I. REGARDLES SOF WHETHER THE CHURCH UNDERTOOK TO RENDER A S ERVICE TO MACGREGOR, ANY S UCH UNDERTAKING DID NOT INCREAS E MACGREGOR’S

RIS K OF HARM ¶14 MacGr egor a r g u e s t h a t, by establishing the Help Line, “ the C h u r c h h a s under taken [a] duty c ategor ically for its child me m b e r s , ” including her self as a v ictim of abuse

. T he Chur ch Defendants disagr ee, ar guing th at the Help Line exists solely to assist Chur ch cler gy. S pecifically, they ar gue that the Help Line “r ender s inter nal Chur ch ser v i ces only and thus pr ov ide s o n ly indir ect benefit to

v ictims.” ¶ 1 5 In suppor t of their position, the Chur ch D e f endants r ely on

a line of c a s e s that inter pr et section 323 to a pply “only when the defendant under takes to pr ov ide a ser v ice directly to the per son i n j ur ed.” Russell v

. United States , 6 31 F. S upp. 1, 2 (D. Utah 19 8 3 ) (emphasis added); see also Thorson v. Mandell
, 525 N

. E

. 2 d 3 75, 378 (Mass. 1988) (“The c reation of a policy against gymnastics in the auditor ium was not an under taking to r ender ser v ice s f o r the pr otection of its user s.”); Charleston v. Larson , 696 N .E.2d 793, 801 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (“[P]laintiff’s v oluntar y under taking theor y

. . . fails

a t the outset because plaintiff nev er a lleged that defendant u n d e r

took ser vices for plaintiff

. . . .” (emphasis in or iginal)). The Chur ch Defendants a r g u e that the Help L i ne was cr eated f or the dir ect benefit of Chur ch cler gy only and that abuse v ic t i m s ar e mer ely potential indir ect b eneficiar ies. They ther efor e asser t that the Help Line does not giv e r ise to a duty to mitigate any har m suffer ed by abuse v ictims. ¶ 16 Ther e i s, howev er , a second line of cases that pr ov ides for

a mor e gener ous r eading of section 323. In Wark v. United States , f or example, the Tenth Cir c uit held that f or section 323 to apply, a plaintiff must fir st show that the defendant “thr ough its a ffir mativ e acts or thr ough a pr omise to act, under took to r ender a ser v ice that

was reasonably calculated to p r ev ent the type of har m that befell the plaintiff.” 269 F.3d 1185, 1189 (10th Cir

. 2001) (emphasis added); see also Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. R-1 v. Justus ex rel. Justus
, 725 P.2d 767, 771 (Colo. 1 986) (en banc) (sa m e). Under this i nter pr etation of

6Cite as: 2014 UT 2 Opinion of the Cour t

section 323, it could be ar gued that the Chur ch’s cr eation of the Help Line was r easonably calculated to p r ev ent the type of har m exper ienced by abuse v ictims like MacGr egor

. ¶ 17 T h e plain language of section 323 c ould ar guably su s t a i n

a thir d inter pr etation that neither pa r t y ha s ar gued. S ection 323
states that a duty ar i ses only when o ne under takes “to r ender

ser v ices to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other ’ s p e r s o n or things .” (Emphasis added.) Under this pr ov ision, a duty would ar guably ar ise only if MacGr egor could show that the Chur ch Defendants should hav e r ecognized that calling the Help Line was necessary for her pr otection. ¶18 But we need not consider these alter nativ e inter pr etations of section 323 because, r egar dless of w hether the Chur c h Defendants under took to r ender a ser v ice to MacGr egor , MacGr egor has
not met h er bur den of showing that t h i s alleged under taking incr eased her r isk of har m. ¶19 Befor e a duty a r i ses under section 3 23, a p laintiff must establish not only the existence of a v oluntar y under taking, but also that ( a) the under taking incr eased plaintiff’s r isk of har m, or (b) the har m suffer ed by the plaintiff r esulted fr o m p l a i n t i f f’s r eliance on the under taking. MacGr egor d oes not claim that she r elied on the Help Line. We ther efor e consider whether the Chur ch’s cr eat i o n o f t he Help Line incr eased her r isk of har m. ¶20 In Al d e r v

. Bayer Corp. AGFA Division , w e held that subsection (a) of s e c tion 323 “r equir es some change in conditions that incr eases the r i sk of har m to the plaintif f o v e r t h e lev el that existed b efor e the defendant became inv olv ed.” 2002 UT 115, ¶ 30, 61 P .3d 1068 (inter nal quotation mar ks omitted). A mer e failur e “to f a c i l i t a t e t h e p r ev ention of har m that occur r ed thr ough other cau s e s ” is insufficient. Id. (inter nal quotation mar ks omitted). ¶21 Fishbaugh v

. U t ah Power & Light, a Division of P a cificorp illustr ates the application of subsection (a). 9 69 P.2d 4 0 3 (Utah 1998). In Fishbaugh
, a pedestr ian was injur ed when he was h it by a car on

an unlighted str eet. Id. at 404. The city had installed str e e t l i g hts, but the lights malfunctioned and we r e n ot lit a t the time of the accident. Id . The plaintiff acknowledged that the city had no duty
to pr ov ide lighting but ar gued that, h av ing chosen to d o s o, the city had a duty to maintain the lights in wor king or der

. Id. at 406. ¶22 W e r e

j e c t e d t h i s a r g u m e n t , r easoni n g t ha t “ l i a b i l i t y

u n der

. . . section [ 323] is gener a lly limited to instances wher e the failur e to exer cise r easonable car e in the under taking has placed the

7M A CG RE G O R v. W A L KE R Opinion of the Cour t
injur ed par ty in a w o r s e p osition than he would hav e been in had the under taking not occur r ed.” Id. at 407

. B e c a u s e the city’s decision to i nstall lighting made the p laintiff n o w o r s e off “ than if the str eet lights had nev er been installed,” the city had no duty “to maintain the str eetlights simply because it installed them.” Id. ¶23 This inter pr etation of section 323 is consistent w ith that of other cour ts. For example, in Jain v. State , th e Iowa S u pr eme Cour t concluded that section 323(a) “ a p p lies only when the defendant’s actions i ncr eased the r isk of har m to plaintiff r elativ e to the r isk that would hav e existed ha d th e d efendant never provided the services initially .” 617 N .W.2d 2 93, 299 (Iowa 20 0 0 ) (emphasis added) (inter nal quotation mar ks omitte d )

. I n o t h e r w o r d s , “ t h e d e f endant’s

n e gligent per for m ance must s omehow put the plaintiff i n a w o r se situation than if the defendant had nev er begun per for mance.” Id. (inter nal quotation mar ks omitted). ¶24 MacGr egor ’s claim d oes n ot satisfy subsection (a) because neither the c r eation of the Help Line n or Walker ’s a lleged failur e to

use i t increased the r i sk of ha r m t o MacGr egor

. In other w or d s , Walker ’s alleged negligent per for mance did n ot put MacGr egor in

a wor se position than s he would hav e b een in had the Chur ch nev er

cr eated the Help Line. ¶25 M a c G r e g o r a r g u e s t h a t “ t h e p s y c h ological impa c t r e s u l t i n g fr om Walker ’s i naction ‘launched a f or ce or instr ument of har m’ and

was not m er ely a ‘failur e t o facilitate the pr ev ention of h ar m that

occur r ed thr ough other causes’” (quoting Alder
, 2002 UT 115, ¶ 30). But section 323, by its ver y ter ms, r equir es “physical har m ” fr om the negligently r ender ed ser v ices. Psychological or emotional har m is insufficient. ¶26 We h old that ev en if the Chur ch had under taken to pr otect MacGr egor and other potential abuse v ictims by v ir tue of the Help Line, MacGr egor ’s r isk of har m was not incr eased r elativ e to the r isk she would hav e faced had the Chur ch nev er c r eated the H elp Line in the fir st place. Thus, MacGr egor ’s section 323 claim fails.

II. IMPOS ING A DUTY IN THIS CAS E IS CONTRARY TO

PUBLIC POLICY 5

5 A cour t may look to gener a l p olicy consider a tions when deter mining the existence of a d uty. AMS Salt Indus. Inc. v

. Magnesium Corp. o

f A m. , 9 4 2 P.2d 315, 321 (Utah 1997). As Dean Pr osser famously noted, “Duty is not sacr osanct i n i tself, b u t i s only an (continued...)

8Cite as: 2014 UT 2 Opinion of the Cour t
¶27 M a cGr egor also ar gues that gener al notions of p ublic policy suppor t the imposition of a duty on the Chur ch Defendants. S pecifically, she r easons that “public policy does not fav or holding p e r s o n s or i nstitutions har mless for the kind of claim tha t [Mac Gr egor ] is br inging against Walker and the Chur ch.” We disagr ee. Contr ar y to MacGr egor ’s ar gument, p ublic policy would actually disfavor imposing a duty in cases such as this f o r f e a r t hat imposition of a duty w ould chill effor ts to pr ev ent abuse and assist

v ictims. Cr eation of pr ogr ams and r esour c es that hav e the potential
to benefit v ictims of abuse s hould be encour aged, not d i s c our aged by the thr eat of potential liability. See, e.g., Pytlewski v. United States , 991 F. S upp. 1043, 1 050 ( N

. D

. Ill. 1998) (“A finding that such a manual or policy in and of itself cr eated a legal duty on the par t of the b usiness

. . . wo uld discour age businesses from pr oducing or for m ulating such guidelines, which would be detr imental to t he gener al public’s best inter est.”). ¶28 We r ejected the asser tion of a duty in AMS Salt Industries Inc. v. Magnesium Corp. of America f or s imilar policy r eason s

. 9 4 2 P.2d 315, 324 (Utah 1997). In that c ase, M a g nesium Cor p. built a dike to pr otect i ts own land fr om f looding. Id. at 317. The d ike also benefitted other owner s, until it failed. Id. at 317– 18. Flood v i ctims filed suit a gainst Magnesium Cor p., alleging it h ad a duty to pr otect neighbor ing p r oper ty f r o m flooding. I d. We held that imposing a duty on Mag n e s i u m Cor p. as to other p r oper ty owner s would be “absur d” because it would thr eaten l andowner s w ith “pot ential liability to ev er y owner of pr oper ty for m i les beyond.” Id. at 3 24. As

a r esult, “no one would ev er dar e to take measur es to pr otect against flooding.” Id. ¶29 The Chur ch
, t h r ough its Help Line, pr ov ides a ser v ice intended to as s i s t its ecclesiastical leader s in counseling abuse

v ictims. It is c er tainly not t h e o n l y or ganization with inter nal policies, pr ocedur es, tr aining, and r esour ces d esigned to r educe the

r isk of abuse and assist v i ctims. To hold that the c r eation o f such policies and pr ogr ams giv es r ise to a duty und e r tor t law would discour age or ganizations fr om cr eating these beneficial pr ogr ams.

5 ( ...continued) expr ession of the sum total of those consider ations of policy which lead the law to s ay that t h e plaintiff is entitled to p r otection.” W. P AG E K E E T O N E T A L ., P ROSS E R A ND K E E T O N O N T H E L A W O F T O R

TS § 53 (5th ed. 1984).

9M A CG RE G O R v. W A L KE R Opinion of the Cour t
¶30 Mo r e o ver , we must be ev en m or e sensitiv e when assessing

a r eligious or ganizatio n ’ s inter nal policies. “The delicate balance between the fr eedom to exer cise r eligion a nd the demands placed on all per sons (cler ical and other s) b y c i v il law r equir es us to pr oceed cautiously i n a contr ov er sy wher e w e ar e asked t o h old that a

r eligious institution’s r eliance on its own w r i tten policy

. . . giv es r ise to liability under civ il law.” Petrell v. Shaw , 902 N.E.2d 401, 409– 10 (Ma s s. 2009). Because imposing a duty on the Chur ch in this case would be contr ar y to public policy, we decline to do so.

CONCLUSION ¶31 We affir m the distr ict cour t’s entr y of summar y judgment in f av or of the Chur ch Defendants. The Chur ch’s c r eation o f the Help L ine did not giv e r is e to a duty to MacGr egor because,

r egar dless of whether the Chur ch under took to r ender a ser v i ce to MacGr egor by v ir tue of the Help Line, the existence of the Help Line did not incr ease her r isk of har m

. T h e r i sk MacGr egor faced was the

same as that she would hav e faced h ad the Chur ch nev er cr eated the Help Line. And the imposition of a duty based solely on the c r eation of the H elp Line would be contr ar y to public p olicy because it would discour age or ganizations fr om pr ov iding such ser v ices.

10