Opinion ID: 2408492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Independent Negligence of the Diocese

Text: The Gibsons allege several acts of negligence by the Diocese: (1) failing to have a policy to prevent sexual abuse of minors, (2) concealing unlawful sexual acts and abuse by failing to educate and accurately inform the public, (3) ignoring and failing to investigate complaints, (4) trying to silence claims and prevent members and the public from discovering priests accused of sexual misconduct, and (5) failing to evaluate the propensity of priests to engage in improper sexual conduct. To establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) defendant had a duty to the plaintiff; (2) defendant failed to perform that duty; and (3) defendant's breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Martin v. City of Washington, 848 S.W.2d 487, 493 (Mo. banc 1993). Whether negligence exists in a particular situation depends on whether or not a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated danger and provided against it. Scheibel v. Hillis, 531 S.W.2d 285, 288 (Mo. banc 1976). In order to determine how a reasonably prudent Diocese would act, a court would have to excessively entangle itself in religious doctrine, policy, and administration. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, ... and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. Serbian, 426 U.S. at 711, 96 S.Ct. at 2381, quoting Watson, 80 U.S. at 728-29. Church members give their implied consent to be subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for. Id. The trial court did not err in dismissing the claims of independent negligence by the Diocese.