Opinion ID: 2640013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: existence of a cause of action for negligent placement

Text: ¶11 In their original complaint, the Savages brought a cause of action against the Village for, among other things, negligence in failing to warn the Savages of J.B.'s criminal record which included serious sexual deviancy and habitual molestation of young children. The Savages allege that the Village's negligence resulted in the sexual abuse of their child by J.B. In their briefs and at oral argument, the Savages characterized this claim as one for negligent placement and argued that such a cause of action is cognizable under Utah law. The Village disputes the Savages' characterization of the law and claims that Utah courts have never recognized a common law cause of action of the nature alleged by the Savages. ¶12 This court has never explicitly recognized a claim for negligent placement. In Little v. Division of Family Services, however, parents whose autistic child died while in a foster home providing specialized assistance for autistic needs filed suit against the Division of Family Services alleging [that] negligent conduct in the placement and treatment of their daughter culminated in [her] death. 667 P.2d 49, 50-52 (Utah 1983). We held that the Division of Family Services, as a placement agency, could be held liable for its failure to properly evaluate the foster home, its failure to supervise [the child's] placement and its failure to protect her from harm. Id. at 52. We held that this was a valid cause of action because [t]he risk that [an autistic child] would injure herself was great. The proven facts that the State knew that she was autistic or manifested autistic symptoms justified the imposition of a special duty. Id. at 55. Although we did not expressly use the term negligent placement, and the factual circumstances were slightly different in that the parents of the child placed in the foster home sued for damages arising from that child's death, Little does provide strong support for the principle that a tort exists for the negligent placement of a child in foster care. ¶13 As a placement agency, the Village has a special duty, similar to that of the Division of Family Services in Little, to place children in foster homes with regard to the welfare of the child being placed and other persons in the home. It is a reasonably foreseeable risk that a child with a known history of sexually abusing young children might sexually abuse again if placed in a home with young children. ' Whether the law imposes a duty does not depend upon foreseeability alone. The likelihood of injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against it and the consequences of placing that burden upon [a placement agency] must also be taken into account.' Id. at 54-55 (quoting Lance v. Senior, 224 N.E.2d 231 (Ill. 1967)). We do not think that the Village's duty to notify the Savages of J.B.'s past behavior and to take reasonable precautions against harm to other children in the foster home is too burdensome when weighed against the potential harm of continued sexual abuse. When children are involved, the duty to look out for their safety is increased. Wheeler v. Jones, 431 P.2d 985, 988 (Utah 1967) (finding that additional safety precautions should have been taken at a pool frequented by children). Placement agencies such as the Village have a special duty to prevent abuse to and by the children they place in foster homes. See Little, 667 P.2d at 52. Because of this special duty and the fundamental principle of American law that victims of wrongful or negligent acts should be compensated to the extent that they have been harmed, Condemarin v. University Hospital, 775 P.2d 348, 354 (Utah 1989), agencies like the Village should be held liable for their negligence in the process of placement that results in sexual abuse. This conclusion is consistent with and follows from a long line of cases interpreting Utah law which, like Little, did not expressly use the term negligent placement, but nonetheless clearly implicated similar negligence principles. These cases recognize causes of action for negligent placement, negligent supervision, and negligent hiring resulting in sexual assault. See O'Neal v. Div. of Family Servs., 821 P.2d 1139, 1140-41 (Utah 1991) (implicitly recognizing a negligent placement claim against a placement agency for resulting sexual abuse); Birkner v. Salt Lake County, 771 P.2d 1053, 1059 (Utah 1989) (allowing plaintiff to sue county for negligent supervision and hiring of a social worker who allegedly sexually assaulted the plaintiff); Doe v. Arguelles, 716 P.2d 279, 283 (Utah 1985) (recognizing negligent supervision in prescribed treatment of a juvenile who later committed sexual abuse). Thus, negligence in the placement of a child in foster care is a cognizable cause of action and was appropriately pled in this case.