Source: https://www.chicagopersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/in_dan_mccormack_sex_abuse_law_1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:11:34+00:00

Document:
David Abels & Associates, P.C. is currently acting as co-counsel with the firm of Hilfman, Martin & Barr P.C. in a lawsuit against the Archdiosese of Chicago relating to the sexual misconduct of Father Daniel McCormack. Last week the Court heard the Plaintiff’s Motion To File an Amended Complaint Seeking Punitive Damages against the defendants. This motion was argued by Bill Martin. The Honorable Jeffrey Lawrence denied the motion, but Judge Lawrence said that he would be willing to hear the motion again after the parties complete some discovery.
The Court focused on the information contained in the report of the Archdiocese’s consultant, Defenbaugh, and specifically commented on 1999 reports from Sister Mary Therese Cusack to the Archdiocese relating to improper conduct by McCormack. The court indicated that the allegations in the plaintiff’s motion may be sufficient to allow the plaintiff to pursue punitive damages, but that these allegations required additional legal evidence in the form of depositions or affidavits. Plaintiff’s counsel intends to take the depositions of Archdiocesan personnel and to resubmit this motion to the court.
Daniel McCormack has plead guilty in criminal court to abusing five boys. He is serving a five year prison sentence.
a.	Introduction Victims of childhood sexual abuse are victimized for life. Persons who commit such abuse must be criminally punished; persons and entities whose conduct facilitates the abusers or the abuse must be civilly punished. In this case, John Doe, a young boy, was one of multiple boys sexually abused by his parish priest, Fr. Daniel McCormack. Though discovery is at an early stage, there is clear, cogent evidence that the defendants in this matter had knowledge for a long time prior to the instant abuse of McCormack’s history of sexual abuse of minors; that these defendants had an opportunity and responsibility to protect the plaintiff from McCormack; and that instead, these defendants, by not timely informing any legal authority or parent of McCormack’s conduct and by not meaningfully barring McCormack from having access to children in Archdiocesan facilities and activities, chose a course of conduct which benefited themselves at the expense of victim boys. Then these defendants “lost” incriminating documents and information about their knowledge of McCormack and their failure to act.
There is significant evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will prove facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages against these defendants, and thus, the plaintiff seeks leave to file a complaint seeking that relief.
e.	newspaper articles (investigation and interviews) (see attached Ex. E).
c.	After McCormack’s ordination in May, 1994, the defendants assigned him to various Archdiocese parishes and positions without restricting his access to children or otherwise protecting the children.
iii.	no meaningful restriction was placed by any defendant on McCormack’s access to children.
iii.	no restriction was placed on boys being in the rectory with McCormack or with McCormack’s access to children in Archdiocesan facilities activities.
p.	On June, 2007, McCormack plead guilty to 5 counts of sexual abuse of minors; the plea includes 1 count for 5 separate boys, including Doe.
A plaintiff may, pursuant to a pretrial motion and after a hearing before the court, amend the complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. The court shall allow the motion to amend the complaint if the plaintiff establishes at such hearing a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. 735 ILCS 5/2-604.1 (2005).
Punitive damages may be awarded when torts are committed with fraud, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or when the defendant acts willfully, or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others. Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d. 172, 186, 384 N.E.2d 353, 359 (1978); Barton v. Chicago Northwestern Transportation Company, 325 Ill.App.3d 1005, 1030-31, 757 N.E.2d 533, 554, (1st Dist. 2001). Willful and wanton misconduct includes a course of action which shows an utter indifference to or a conscious disregard for the safety of others. Poole v. City of Rolling Meadows, 167 Ill.2d 41, 49, 656 N.E.2d 768, 771 (1995); Winfrey v. Chicago Park District, 274 Ill.App.3d 939, 944-45, 654 N.E.2d 508 (1st Dist. 1995). A willful and wanton injury is one which is intentional or which the act is committed under circumstances which exhibit a reckless disregard for the safety of others, such as a failure after knowledge of impending danger, to exercise ordinary care to prevent it, or failure to discover the danger through recklessness or carelessness when it could have been discovered by ordinary care. American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill.2d 274, 285, 735 N.E.2d 551, 557 (2000); Lynch v. Board of Education, 82 Ill.2d 415, 429, 412 N.E.2d 447, 457 (1980); Conoway v. Hanover Park Park District, 277 Ill.App.3d 896, 661 N.E.2d 528 (1st Dist. 1996).
Even at this early stage of discovery, there is sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will prove facts to support an award of punitive damages against these defendants. 735 ILCS 5/2-604.1. There is significant evidence that the defendants’ conduct was willful, grossly negligent, exhibited a wanton disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, demonstrated an utter indifference to the plaintiff’s safety, and/or exhibited a reckless disregard for the safety of Doe. This evidence includes that before Doe’s abuse, the defendants had knowledge of multiple other incidents of sexual abuse of children by McCormack; they failed to timely report McCormack’s abuses (in violation of Illinois law) to civil authorities, and they failed to inform other critical persons, including parents (parish, school, basketball) and school officials of McCormack; they failed to timely remove McCormack from access to children; and, they exhibited an overall callous disregard for the welfare of the boys, including Doe.
The defendants not only failed to act, they affirmatively acted inappropriately. For instance, in the face of the above knowledge and incidents, they allowed McCormack to continue to coach basketball to young boys. (Ex. A, pg. 20) This allowed him access to boys in the defendants’ rectory since he directed boys to pick up and return basketball equipment there. These defendants additionally represented to the public that they were spiritual leaders and educators, and that all pedophilic priests had been removed from access to children, when, in fact, they knew this was not true relative to McCormack.
In sum, there is significant evidence that the defendants’ knowledge, inactivity, activities, and silence allowed McCormack unfettered, continued access to boys, including the plaintiff, in the defendants’ facilities and activities. (See Exhibit F, plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, pars. 69, 70) Then, these defendants at best “lost”, and at worse, destroyed, critical documents about their knowledge of (and “response” thereto) of McCormack’s abuses, including portions of McCormack’s seminary file and Sr. Cusak’s written report. (See above pgs. 3-4, pars. b, d; Exhibit A, pg. 25-26). Under Illinois law, the defendants’ knowledge (of prior abuses) and their deliberate course of conduct, coupled with their loss of critical records, gives rise to willful and wanton conduct, gross negligence, and/or to a course of action which shows an utter indifference to and/or a conscious disregard for the safety of Doe. (See above authority, pg. 6-7) As such, the plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint seeking punitive damages. 735 ILCS 5/2-604.1.
ii.	Other Jurisdictions Other states, which have specifically addressed awarding punitive damages against a church/church official in similar cases as the instant one have allowed punitive damages. See, Hutchison v. Luddy, 896 A.2d 1260, 206 PA Super 59 (Penn. 2006) (Pennsylvania; punitive damages awarded); Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington v. Secter, 966 S.W.2d 286 (Kentucky 1998) (Kentucky, punitive damages awarded); Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese and Corporation, 196 Fed.3d 409 (1999) (Connecticut; punitive damages awarded; case reversed on other grounds); Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis, 48 N.W.2d 806 (1992) (Minnesota; punitive damages awarded); Scheffler v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis, 563 N.W.2d 767 (1997) (Minnesota; punitive damages awarded; reversed on other grounds).
CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, pursuant to §2-604.1, the plaintiff seeks leave to file an Amended Complaint adding a Count for punitive damages against the defendants in this matter.
HILFMAN, MARTIN & BARR, P.C.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2