Opinion ID: 2165473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Alleged Negligence.

Text: The defendant's motion for summary judgment challenged the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact on two issues necessary to establish a duty of care: whether the defendant knew of Father Cigrand's acts and whether an employer/employee relationship existed between the Archdiocese and Father Cigrand. The plaintiff's resistance to summary judgment was very general with respect to the defendant's duties toward the plaintiff. His resistance stated: The duties that the Archdiocese owed Walderbach and its other parishioners were based on its possession of jurisdictional authority over the selection, ordination, assignment, supervision, training, instruction, and retention in good standing of the diocesan priests it assigned to parishes within its jurisdiction, an administrative relationship fixed within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. First, the plaintiff contends he established a genuine issue of fact on the issue of whether an employer/employee relationship existed between the Archdiocese and Father Cigrand. Interestingly, the plaintiff's claim is based largely on an affidavit by Monsignor James O. Barta, which was introduced by the Archdiocese in support of its motion for summary judgment. This affidavit stated that Father Nicholas Cigrand was never an employee of The Archdiocese of Dubuque. St. Patrick's Church, Ryan, Iowa, is a corporation with Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. It is a separate legal entity from The Archdiocese of Dubuque. While serving as an Assistant Pastor at St. Patrick's Church, Ryan, Iowa, Father Nicholas Cigrand was an independent contractor, receiving a salary from St. Patrick's Church. He was never an employee of The Archdiocese of Dubuque. Factors indicating a relationship of employer and employee include: the right of selection or employment at will, the responsibility to pay wages, the right to terminate the relationship, the right to control the work, the benefit received by the alleged employer, and the intent of the parties. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d 537, 541-42 (Iowa 1997). We have said that [i]n cases presenting a choice between categorizing a person as an employee or an independent contractor, the primary focus is on the extent of control by the employer over the details of the alleged employee's work. Id. at 542. Walderbach contends that he has established enough evidence to prevail on the summary judgment issue by showing the Archdiocese has jurisdictional authority and assigns priests to parishes within its jurisdiction. He also contends that a priest owes duties of obedience and submission to the Archdiocese and that Father Cigrand was appointed and supervised by the Archdiocese and acted under its control and authority. The Archdiocese responds that Father Cigrand was not an employee, but rather an independent contractor. In support of this argument, the Archdiocese relies on the vicar general's affidavit in which he states that Father Cigrand was not an employee, but was an independent contractor; that St. Patrick's Church is a separate legal entity with its own articles of incorporation and bylaws; and that Father Cigrand was paid a salary by St. Patrick's Church, not the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese contends that the facts Walderbach relies on to support his contention that an employer/employee relationship existed are not based on evidence contained in the summary judgment record, but on Walderbach's own arguments. We agree with the district court that the plaintiff's evidence fails to generate a genuine issue of fact to establish an employer/employee relationship between the Archdiocese and Father Cigrand. The plaintiff contends that the Archdiocese owed him a duty of care because of the defendant's knowledge of Father Cigrand's actions. The plaintiff contends that he presented evidence to show a material issue of fact on the issue of the Archdiocese's knowledge because the Archdiocese had custody of all of the church records from St. Patrick's Church. According to the plaintiff's argument, the Archdiocese would therefore necessarily be on notice of the details of Father Cigrand's employment, including the acts of abuse. The problem is that nothing in the records even suggests any abuse by Father Cigrand. As Monsignor Barta stated in his affidavit, he had examined the files of the Archdiocese, and they showed Father Cigrand served as an assistant pastor of St. Patrick's Church from 1965 to 1968. His affidavit stated that no evidence appeared in the records to show Father Cigrand had committed abuse or even that there were any allegations of abuse. The plaintiff also attempts to show the defendant had constructive knowledge of the abuse because, according to the plaintiff's deposition, a priest, probably Father Cooney, the Pastor of St. Patrick's Church, witness[ed] at least one of Father Cigrand's acts of abuse. The plaintiff argues that this incident was sufficient to put the defendant Archdiocese on constructive notice of the abuse because the priest who presumably saw the incident would surely have reported it to the Archdiocese. Based on the summary judgment record, a fact finder would necessarily have to speculate about who actually observed the act or acts of abuse and, if it was Father Cooney, that he reported this to the Archdiocese so as to put the Archdiocese on notice of the alleged abuse. This hypothesis is merely speculative and fails to generate a genuine issue of fact to establish the Archdiocese knew of Father Cigrand's alleged abuse. The district court properly granted summary judgment as to all of the counts alleging direct negligence of the Archdiocese based on the alleged acts of Father Cigrand. This leaves the issue of vicarious liability.