### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE A TME MP H IS Febr uary 23, 201 0 S es sio n NORMAN REDWIN G v. T HE C ATH OLIC BISHOPFO R T HE D IOCES E OF MEM PHIS
A p p ea l f ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C T
- 005052- 08 D ’ A rm y B ai l ey, Judge

N o. W 2009- 00986- C O A
- R 10- C V - F i l ed M ay 27, 2010

P ART I AL DI S S EN T

___________________________________
HOL L Y M

. KI RB Y, J

. , DI S S E NT I NG:
I concuri n t he maj or i t y ’ s anal y s i s of t he ecc l es i as t i cal doctr i ne and i t s hol di ng t hatw e do not have s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on of M r . R edw i ng’ s cl ai m s of negl i genthi r i ng and r et ent i on, b u tt h a twe d o h a v e s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d j u d i c a t e h i s c l a i m of

n e g l i g e nt s u p e r v i s i o n . I mu s t d i s s e n t , h o we v e r , f r o m th e ma

j o r i t y ’ s h o l d i n g t h a t , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, M r. R e d w in g ’s c la im o f n e g lig e n t s u p e rv is io n is b a rr e d b yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . I bel i eve that , i n t hi s cas e, di s m i s s al bas ed on t he pl eadi ngs i s pr emat ur e and thatM r . R edw i ng is e n tit led to c o n d u c t d isc o v e ryo n f a c ts p e rtin e n t to w h e th e r th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is t ol l ed.
A s not ed byt he maj or it y , the fac t s i n t hi s cas e ar e s i m i l art o t hos e pr es ent ed i n D oe v. Ca th o lic B ish o

p fo r th e D io c e se o

f Me mp h is , N o . W2 0 0 7

- 0 1 5 7 5

- C O A

- R 9

- C V , 2 0 0 8 WL 4 2 5 3 6 2 8 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), per m
. app. den. ( M ar . 16, 2009)

. A s i n D oe , M r . R edw i ng asse rt s tha t th e D ef

en d an t C atho li c B isho p is directl yli ab le fo r th e n eg li g en t hir ing , r et ent i on, a n d s u p e rv is io n o f

th e o f f e n d in g p ri e s t. See id. at*2.
H ow ever , i n D oe , the p lain tiff ’s c o m p lain t co n tain e d o n ly a “ c ryp tic alle g a tio n ” th a t, de sp ite t he exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e di l i gence , t he p lai nt i ff ha d “onl yr ece nt l yl earned of the [D i oces e’ s ] negl i gentconduct

. ” I d. at *1 7 n . 1 7

. In co n tr ast, in the instan t case , M r. R edw i ng’ s amended compl ai ntas s er t s t hatt he R om an C athol i c C hur ch as a w hol e “ha s gone t o gr eatl engths ” t o conce al i ns t ance s of chi l d s exual abus e and the C hur ch’ s know l edge of s u c h a b u s e , d e t a i l i n g s p e c i f i c a c t s b y t h e C h u r c h i n o r d e rt o a v o i d c r i m i n a l a n d c i v i l l i a b i l i t y,The com plaint a lleg es that the Chu rch a s a who le sou ght to m aintain secrecy abo ut ch ild sexual ab use 1 by: Failingto disclose com plaints to lawenfo rcem ent o fficials, parishion ers an d thepu blic;
Ma inta in in gs ec re t arc hi v es and f il es o f evid en ce o f se x ab us e, a cc es sibl e on ly to bi sh op s; InstructingC hurchofficials in de struction of inc riminatingdo cuments and spoliation of e vid e nc e re gar di ng s e xu a l ab us e by cl e r gy; Threateningand

coe rcingv ictim s an d the ir families to withd raw com plaints and retract alleg ations of sexual ab use. -2- avoi d bei ng compel l ed bycour t s t o di s cl os e i nfor m at i on on abus e, and avoi d s canda l and fi nanci al l os s . I t al l eges t hat t he defe ndant D i oces e m i s l ed M r . R edw i ng and hi s fami l yas 1 t o the D i ocese’s know l edg e of t he pri est ’s his t ory and propen si t y for sexual abu se of m i no rs , and t ook act i ve s t eps t o “conc eal t he D i oces e’ s . . . w ron g d o i ng i n s uper vi s i ng Fat her G u th rie , an d p re v e n t N o rm a n R e d w in g a n d o th e r v ictim s o f F a th e r G u th rie f

ro m f ili n g c iv il la w s u its ,” a n d f

ra u d u le n tly c o n c e a le d in f o rm a tio n r e l e v a n t to M r. R e d w in g ’s c la im s . I beli eve t hat t he spec i fi c factual al l egati on s i n M r. R edw i ng ’s am end ed co m plai nt di st i ng uis h t h i s c a s e f

r o m D oe , and w arr antper m i t t i ng di s coveryt o pr ocee d.
I n D oe , w e decli ned t o ho l d t hat, had D oe p ursued an ycl ai m againstt he D i ocese o r the p ri est att he t i m e he r eac hed maj or i t y , he i ps o f act o w oul d have l ea rne d that ther e w er e pr i or i ns t ance s of s exual m ol es t at i on byt he off endi ng pr i es t and t hat t he D i oces e had know l edge o f th e m . I d. at *14. I ns t ead, w e deem ed i t “nec es s ary t o exami ne i n s om e det ai l w hatD oe knew att he t i m e he r eac hed maj or i t yand fol l ow t he thr ead of w hat w oul d have ha ppened” h a d h e p u rs u e d a c la im a g a in s t th e D io c e s e o r t h e p ri e s t. I d.
I n D oe , b a se d o n th e f

a c ts th a t th e p lain tiff k n e w w h e n h e re a c h e d m a jo rity , the o n lyc laim he coul d have a l l eged a gai ns tt he D i oces e w as for vi car i ous l i abi l i t y , undert he doctr i ne of re s p o n d e a t s u p e ri o r. I

d. at *15. H ad he pur s ued s uch a cl ai m agai ns t t he D i oces e, w e found a subst anti al po ssi bil i t ythat the clai m w ou ld hav e been dis m i ssed based o n the pl eadings, pr i ort o anydi s coveryon t he D i oces e’ s know l edge of pr i or i ns t ance s of chi l d s exual abus e. I d. at*16. H ow ever , w e found fur t her t hat a r eas onabl e per s on i n D oe’ s pos i t i on w hen he r eac hed maj or i t yw oul d have f i l ed a l aw s ui tagai ns tt he off endi ng pr iest

. H ad he done s o, w e found, r out i ne di s coveryw oul d have i nvol ved ques t i ons aboutt he D i oces e’ s know l edge o f p ri o r a b u s e . I

d. T he D oe C our tcomm ent ed that , had the D i oces e bee n as ked aboutt he pr i es t ’ s pr i or offe ns es , “w e ca nnotknow w hethert he D i oces e w oul d have be en fort hcomi ng i n r es pons e t o s uch i nqui r i es . ” I d. at*17. N evert hel ess, to ll i ng t heor i es s uch as t he-3-

d is c o v e ry ru le w e re “ o n ly av a ila b le to a p la in tif f w h o h a s e x e rc is e d re a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e .” I d. O n t hatbas i s , w e hel d t hat D oe’ s cl ai m agai ns t t he defe ndant D i oces e w as barr ed byt he s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . In the case at bar , t he clai m at i ssue i s M r. R edw i ng ’s cl ai m of n egli gen tsupervi si on against th e D io c e se . F o r su c h a c laim a g a in st a n e m p lo y e r, it is n o t en o u g h , o f c o u rse , to s im p ly as s er tw r ongful conductbyt he e m p loy ee. T o r ecove ragai ns tan empl oy erfornegl i gent supervi si on , t he p l ai nti ff m ustshow t hat the “h arm caused byt he em ploy ee’s act i on [w as] for es eea bl e t o t he empl oy er . ” Sm ith v. K eypor t Sel f
-Stor age , 2000 W L 558604, at*4 ( T enn. C t. A p p . M a y 5 , 2 0 0 0 ). T h e p lain tiff m u st sh o w “ sp e c if ic k n o w led g e ” o f

f a c ts th a t w o u ld p u t th e e m p lo y e r o n n o tic e o f t h e e m p l o ye e ’s w ro n g f u l a c ts

. O v e r la n d

v . S w if ty O il C o ., 2 0 0 1 W L 8 5 6 5 8 0 , at *4 (T en n . C t. A p p . Ju ly3 1 , 2 0 0 1 ) per m
. app. den. (D ec . 1 0 , 2 0 0 1 ). T h u s, a t th e tim e h e re a c h e d m a jo rity , M r. R e d w in g c o u ld n o t b e e x p e c ted to a ss e rt a c laim of negl i gents uper vi s i on agai ns t t he D i oces e w i t houtatl eas ti nqui r ynot i ce of fac t s s how i ng th a t th e p ri e s t’ s w ro n g f u l c o n d u c t w a s re a s o n a b ly f o re s e e a b le b yth e D io c e s e . U s i ng t he met hodol ogyi n D oe , w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n w e “ f o llo w th e th re a d ” o f

w h a t w o u ld hav e occu rr ed h ad M r. R edw i ng “exerci sed reasonable di l i gen ce” an d fi l ed a l aw sui tagainst t he of f e n d i n g p r i e s t ? M r . Re d wi n g a l l e g e s i n h i s c o mpl a i n t t h a t t h e Chu r c h , a nd t he d e f e n d a n t D io c e se , w e n t to “ g re a t len g th s” to a v o id a n y d isc lo su re o f its k n o w led g e o f c h ild s exual abu se, a n d t ook aff i r m at i ve s t eps t o m i s l ead M r . R edw i ng and hi s fami l yand fra u d u lentlyco n ce al i n fo rm ati o n p erti n en t t o h is cl aim s . P resu m ing M r. R ed w ing ’s a lleg a tio n s to b e tru e , w h ich w e m u st at th is po in t, e v e n if M r. R e d w in g h a d f iled a law su it a g a in st th e p rie st w h e n h e re a c h e d m a jo rity , th e re is a su b sta n tial p o ss ib ili tyth a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e d is c o v e re d th a t h e h a d a c la im o f n e g lig e n t su p e rv is io n a g a in s t th e D io c e s e . D oe , at*16.
T he i s s ue of w hether“the pl ai nt i ff e xer ci s ed r eas onabl e ca r e i n di s cover i ng t h e i nj ur yor w r ong i s us ual l y a fac t ques t i on fort he j ur yt o det er m i ne. ” Schm ank v. Soni c A utom oti ve, I n c ., 2008 W L 2078076 at *3 ( T enn C t

. A pp. M ay16, 2008) ( quot i ng W y a tt v . A -B e s t C o ., 9 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 5 )). S e e a ls o , Turnerv. R om an Catholi c D i oces e, 987 A

. 2d 9 6 0 , 9 8 2 -3 (V erm o n t 20 0 9 )(i ssu e o f w h ethe r plainti f f w a s o n inq u iryn o ti ce o f D ioce se’s pot ent i al l i abi l i t yof chur ch l eade r s hi p w as i s s ue fort he j ur y )

. J udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs or di s m i s s al of the com pl ai nt i s appr opr i at e onl y“w her e the undi s put ed fa ct s demonst r at e that no r eas onabl e tr i erof fa ctcoul d concl ude t hat a pl ai nt i ff di d notknow , ori n t he exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e ca r e and di l i gence s houl d nothave know n, t hathe .

. . w as i nj ur ed as a r es ul tof t he def endant ’ s w r ongful conduct

. ” I d . T hi s i s t rue, of cour se, re g ardl es s of w hethert he p lain tiff se e k s to h a v e th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s to lled f

o r th irtyd a y s o r, as h e re , fo r n e a rly t hirt yy ears .-4-

If p erm itted d isco v ery , M r. R ed w ing m ayn o t be a b le t o ac q u ir e su ff ici en t evid en ce fo r a rea so n ab le t ri er o f fa ct to fi n d that, at t h e ti m e h e re ac h ed m ajority , h e d id n o t hav e inq u iry not i ce of fac t s t o s uppor t a cl ai m of negl i gent s uper vi s i on agai ns t t he D i oces e. I f thati s t he c a s e , d is m is s a l o f

h is c o m p la in t w ill b e a p p ro p ri a te a t th a t p o in t. H o w e v e r, f o r n o w , I bel i eve that di s m i s s al i s pr emat ur e, and t hat t he t r i al cour t s houl d be affi r m ed on t hi s i s s ue.

________________________________________ H O LLYM

. KIRB Y , J.