Opinion ID: 1281182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Edna's Claims

Text: Grabrian and the diocese assert that the court of appeals properly upheld the trial court's dismissal of Edna's crossclaims because her claims were for seduction which were abolished by section 13-20-202. We disagree. Seduction is the act of a man in enticing a woman to have unlawful intercourse with him by means of persuasion, solicitation, promise, bribes, or other means without the employment of force. Weinlich v. Coffee, 67 Colo. 382, 176 P. 210 (1919) (citation omitted). In Weinlich, the court concluded that because the plaintiff was married at the time of the seduction and no statute permitted a seduction action by a married woman, she could not sue her seducer. Id. at 385, 176 P. 211. The court stated: At common law a seduced female has no cause of action against her seducer, not only because she is a party to the wrongful act, but also because loss of service is indispensable to a right of recovery, and no one except those entitled to the services of the female can maintain an action for the seduction, the right of action being based solely upon the relation of master and servant. In many states, however, a right of action has been expressly given by statute to the female seduced.    The statutes require that the female must be unmarried at the time of her seduction, in order to maintain an action therefor. Id. at 384-85, 176 P. at 211 (citation omitted). The statute relating to the crime of seduction that was in effect when the General Assembly enacted the heart balm statute in 1937 was also limited to unmarried females. [6] Because Edna was married, we conclude that her crossclaim did not set forth a claim based on seduction. Edna's allegations also do not set forth a claim for alienation of affections. As we previously stated, an element of a claim for alienation of affections is that the defendant must intend to induce the plaintiff's spouse to separate. For purposes of Edna's crossclaims, Edna is the plaintiff. Edna did not allege that Grabrian's acts were intended to cause Robert to separate from her. Nor, in our view, do the allegations, in essence, support such an interpretation. The crossclaim does not include a claim for alienation of affections. Edna's crossclaim also fails to set forth a claim for criminal conversation. A recovery for criminal conversation requires proof that there was a valid marriage and that the defendant had adulterous relations with the plaintiff's spouse. 1 H. Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States, § 12.3, at 662 (2d ed. 1987). [7] Since Edna does not allege that Grabrian's adulterous conduct involved her husband, her crossclaim is not an action for criminal conversation. Accordingly, we hold that Edna's crossclaim is not barred by section 13-20-202. Edna set forth five claims for relief in her crossclaim: (1) Grabrian breached his fiduciary duty to Edna; (2) Grabrian negligently performed his duty as a marital counselor; (3) Grabrian engaged in outrageous conduct with regard to Edna; (4) the diocese knew or should have known of Grabrian's negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and outrageous conduct, and as such breached its duty to supervise Grabrian; (5) because the diocese had jurisdiction over and control of Grabrian, the acts and negligence of Grabrian are imputed to the diocese. We examine each of these claims in turn to determine whether they were properly dismissed by the trial court.
The threshold issue that we must first resolve is whether a member of the clergy, who holds himself out as being trained and capable of conducting marital counseling, [8] is immune from any liability for harm caused by his counseling by virtue of the first amendment. Grabrian and the diocese assert that Robert's and Edna's claims are violative of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the performance of pastoral duties by a Catholic priest, including sacramental counseling of parishioners, is a matter of ecclesiastical cognizance and policy with which a civil court cannot interfere. The first amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U.S. Const. amend. 1. Marital counseling by a cleric presents difficult questions because it often incorporates both religious counseling and secular counseling. While we agree that spiritual counseling, including marital counseling by a priest, may implicate first amendment rights, we are not convinced that the allegations in Edna's crossclaim permit Grabrian to assert a free exercise clause defense. The United States Supreme Court has distinguished the absolute freedom of religious belief from the limited freedom to act upon those beliefs. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903-04, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). In Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1572, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), the Court stated that a party challenging governmental action as an infringement of his free exercise rights must show that there is a coercive effect against his practice of religion. When the free exercise clause is raised as a defense, the threshold question is whether the conduct of the defendant is religious. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1533-34, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (to have the protection of the [r]eligious [c]lauses the claims must be rooted in religious belief); see Note, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Spiritual Counselors: Can Outrageous Conduct be Free Exercise?, 84 Mich.L.Rev. 1269, 1302 (1986). In the spiritual counseling context, the free exercise clause is relevant only if the defendant can show that the conduct that allegedly caused plaintiff's distress was in fact `part of the belief and practices' of the religious group. Id. (citing Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Or.App. 203, 245, 644 P.2d 577, 604 (1982). The alleged misconduct of Grabrian that is at the very heart of Edna's crossclaim is that he induced Edna to engage in a sexual relationship during the course, and as a result, of marital counseling. Edna alleged that her damages were a direct result of the sexual relationship. If the alleged conduct of Grabrian was dictated by his sincerely held religious beliefs or was consistent with the practice of his religion, we would have to resolve a difficult first amendment issue. This, however, is not the case. It has not been asserted that Grabrian's conduct falls within the practices or beliefs of the Catholic church. Grabrian's and the diocese's brief states that every Catholic is well aware of the vow of celibacy required of a priest at the time of his ordination. The brief also points out that sexual involvement by a priest has been held to be per se outside the scope of his employment. The brief recognizes and admits that sexual activity by a priest is fundamentally antithetical to Catholic doctrine. As such, the conduct upon which Edna's crossclaim is premised is, by definition, not an expression of a sincerely held religious belief. Members of the clergy cannot, in all circumstances, use the shield of the first amendment as protection and as a basis for immunity from civil suit. [9] When the alleged wrongdoing of a cleric clearly falls outside the beliefs and doctrine of his religion, he cannot avail himself of the protection afforded by the first amendment.
Edna's first claim for relief alleges that Grabrian, in his position as a priest and as one who holds himself out to the community as a professional or trained marriage counselor, breached his fiduciary duty to her. A fiduciary is a person having a duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for the benefit of another in matters connected with the undertaking. A fiduciary has a duty to deal with utmost good faith and solely for the benefit of the beneficiary. See CJI-Civ. 31:16 (1980). A fiduciary's obligations to the beneficiary include, among other things, a duty of loyalty, see Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 170 (1959), a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill, see Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 174 (1959), and a duty to deal impartially with beneficiaries, see Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 183 (1959). A person standing in a fiduciary relationship with another is subject to liability to the other for harm resulting from a breach of the duty imposed by the relationship. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874 (1979). We have no difficulty in finding that Grabrian, as a marriage counselor to Robert and Edna, owed a fiduciary duty to Edna. His duty to Edna was created by his undertaking to counsel her. Grabrian had a duty, given the nature of the counseling relationship, to engage in conduct designed to improve the Destefanos' marital relationship. As a fiduciary, he was obligated not to engage in conduct which might harm the Destefanos' relationship. If the allegations are true, it is clear to us that Grabrian breached his duty and obligation when he had sexual intercourse with Edna. See Horak v. Biris, 130 Ill. App.3d 140, 85 Ill.Dec. 599, 474 N.E.2d 13 (1985); see also Watts v. Cumberland County Hosp. Sys., Inc., 75 N.C.App. 1, 330 S.E.2d 242 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, 317 N.C. 321, 345 S.E.2d 201 (1986).
Edna's second claim for relief alleges that Grabrian negligently performed his duty as a marital counselor and that a member of the clergy who represents himself as a competent marital counselor, has a duty to employ the degree of knowledge, skill, and judgment ordinarily possessed by members of that profession in the community. This claim of professional negligence is a claim for malpractice. See Artist v. Butterweck, 162 Colo. 365, 426 P.2d 559 (1967); Dixon v. Norberg, 113 Colo. 352, 157 P.2d 131 (1945). Malpractice consists of any professional misconduct, unreasonable lack of skill or fidelity in professional or fiduciary duties, evil practice, or illegal or immoral conduct. See Black's Law Dictionary 864 (5th ed. 1979). Since Grabrian is a Catholic priest, the malpractice claim alleged by Edna falls within the realm of clergy malpractice. [10] To date, no court has acknowledged the existence of such a tort. [11] Since the claim for clergy malpractice is not supported by precedent and raises serious first amendment issues, we have concluded that Edna's second claim for relief was properly dismissed. We do not recognize the claim of clergy malpractice. Courts have generally recognized that when a professional counselor engages in sexual relations with a patient, client, or counselee, he may be held liable for damages. See Roy v. Hartogs, 85 Misc.2d 891, 381 N.Y.S.2d 587 (1976); Cotton v. Kambly, 101 Mich.App. 537, 300 N.W.2d 627 (1980). The General Assembly has enacted legislation which imposes penalties against psychologists who are engaged in sexual intimacies with their patients or clients. Section 12-43-111(1)( l ), 5 C.R.S. (1985), provides: The [Colorado state board of psychologist examiners] has the power to deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew any license, or to place on probation a licensee, upon proof that such person ... ( l ) Has maintained relationships with clients that are likely to impair his professional judgment or increase the risk of client exploitation, such as treating employees, supervisees, close colleagues, or relatives, or having sexual intimacies with clients.... However, the legislature has expressly evinced an intent to exclude religious ministers, priests, and rabbis from the statutory scheme which imposes liability upon psychologists for malpractice. Section 12-43-114(10), 5 C.R.S. (1985), states that: Nothing in this article shall restrict a duly ordained minister, priest, or rabbi from carrying out his ministerial responsibilities while functioning in his ministerial capacity within a recognized religious organization and serving the spiritual needs of its constituency, provided he does not hold himself out to the public by any title or description incorporating the words psychologist, psychological, psychology, or other term implying training, experience, or expertise in psychology. The legislative intent of the General Assembly is even more pronounced in the 1988 enactment relating to penalties against mental health professionals and marriage and family therapists who engage in sexual intimacies with their clients or patients. The 1988 statute states that: [a]ny person engaged in the practice of religious ministry shall not be required to comply with the provisions of this article, so long as such person does not hold himself out to the public by such titles as psychologist, licensed marriage and family therapist, or licensed professional counselor, unless the person has been licensed pursuant to the state regulatory scheme. Chapter 88, section 1, § 12-43-215(1), 1988 Colo.Sess.Laws 535, 543-44. Since the General Assembly has shown an intent to exclude religious counselors from the liability provisions of the statute creating liability for mental health professionals, we conclude that Edna's second claim for relief was properly dismissed.
The crossclaim of Edna also asserts that Grabrian engaged in outrageous conduct. The test for outrageous conduct in Colorado is: Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress (1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress to another, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm. Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1350 (Colo.1988) (quoting Rugg v. McCarty, 173 Colo. 170, 177, 476 P.2d 753, 756 (1970) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46 comment d (1965))). Outrageous conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Id. (citations omitted). Viewing the crossclaim in the light most favorable to Edna, as we must, we conclude that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. We note that on remand it is for the trial court, in the first instance, to determine whether the conduct at issue is outrageous. Id.
Edna, in her fourth and fifth claims for relief, alleges that the diocese breached its duty to supervise Grabrian, and that the actions of Grabrian should be imputed to the diocese. An employer may be held responsible for tortious conduct by an employee only if the tort is committed within the course and scope of employment. McDonald v. Lakewood Country Club, 170 Colo. 355, 461 P.2d 437 (1969); see also National Cash Register Co. v. Lightner, 154 Colo. 98, 111, 388 P.2d 781, 788 (1964) (The principal is ordinarily not liable for the independent acts of the agent done in his own name outside the scope of his employment.). An employee is acting within the scope of his employment if he is engaged in the work which has been assigned to him by his employer or he is doing what is necessarily incidental to the work which has been assigned to him or which is customary within the business in which the employee is engaged. Russell v. First Am. Mortgage Co., 39 Colo.App. 360, 565 P.2d 972 (1977). A priest's violation of his vow of celibacy is contrary to the instructions and doctrines of the Catholic church. When a priest has sexual intercourse with a parishioner it is not part of the priest's duties nor customary within the business of the church. Such conduct is contrary to the principles of Catholicism and is not incidental to the tasks assigned a priest by the diocese. Under the facts of this case there is no basis for imputing vicarious liability to the diocese for the alleged conduct of Grabrian. Even though Grabrian's acts do not create a basis for holding the diocese vicariously liable, the diocese may be directly liable for negligently supervising Grabrian. The Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 (1958) states: A person conducting an activity through servants or other agents is subject to liability for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless: .... (c) in the supervision of the activity.... Comment d states: The principal may be negligent because he has reason to know that the servant or other agent, because of his qualities, is likely to harm others in view of the work or instrumentalities entrusted to him. If the dangerous quality of the agent causes harm, the principal may be liable under the rule that one initiating conduct having an undue tendency to cause harm is liable therefor. [ See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 (1965)]. .... One who employs another to act for him is not liable under the rule stated in this Section merely because the one employed is incompetent, vicious, or careless. If liability results it is because, under the circumstances, the employer has not taken the care which a prudent man would take in selecting the person for the business in hand. What precautions must be taken depend upon the situation. One can normally assume that another who offers to perform simple work is competent. If, however, the work is likely to subject third persons to serious risk of great harm, there is a special duty of investigation. Liability results under the rule stated in this Section, not because of the relation of the parties, but because the employer antecedently had reason to believe that an undue risk of harm would exist because of the employment. The employer is subject to liability only for such harm as is within the risk. If, therefore, the risk exists because of the quality of the employee, there is liability only to the extent that the harm is caused by the quality of the employee which the employer had reason to suppose would be likely to cause harm. See also Martinelli v. District Court, 199 Colo. 163, 169, 612 P.2d 1083, 1087 (1980) (police department may be directly liable for negligence in selection, supervision or retention of police officers); Rosane v. Senger, 112 Colo. 363, 366, 149 P.2d 372, 374 (1944) (hospital may be directly liable for negligent acts of doctors); Western Ins. Co. v. Brochner, 682 P.2d 1213 (Colo. App.1983) (hospital may be directly liable for needless surgery of staff doctors), rev'd on other grounds, 724 P.2d 1293 (Colo.1986); [12] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 comment c (1965) ([T]he master may subject himself to liability ... by retaining in his employment servants who, to his knowledge, are in the habit of misconducting themselves in a manner dangerous to others.). Accordingly, we hold that a person who knows or should have known that an employee's conduct would subject third parties to an unreasonable risk of harm may be directly liable to third parties for harm proximately caused by his conduct. [13] Edna's fourth claim for relief states: Defendant Diocese of Colorado Springs knew or should have known that Defendant Grabrian was engaging in conduct which was outrageous, negligent, and a breach of his fiduciary duty, and Defendant Diocese owed a duty of supervision of said Defendant Grabrian to the public and breached said duty, causing the injuries and damages set forth above. Accepting these allegations as true, Edna has stated a viable claim for relief against the diocese for negligent supervision. We conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing Edna's fourth claim, but properly dismissed her fifth claim for relief.