Beul v. ASSE Int'l, Inc.
233 F.3d 441 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An organization with a primary duty to protect a minor from a foreseeable type of harm, such as sexual abuse, cannot escape liability for its negligence by claiming the perpetrator's criminal act was a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation.
Facts:
- ASSE International, a student exchange program, placed Kristin Beul, a 16-year-old German student, with the Bruce family in Wisconsin.
- ASSE's local representative, Marianne Breber, had minimal contact with Beul after her arrival in September 1995, only speaking to her briefly by phone and failing to establish a trusting relationship.
- On November 17, 1995, the host father, Richard Bruce, raped Beul, initiating a protracted sexual relationship.
- Bruce frequently kept Beul home from school, leading to 27 absences by February, and threatened to commit suicide if she exposed their relationship.
- In January, Breber was made aware of marital tension related to Bruce's relationship with Beul but did not investigate further.
- In February, after learning of the Bruce's impending divorce and Beul's numerous school absences, Breber removed Beul from the home but did not inquire about potential sexual abuse.
- After Beul was moved, she continued contact with Bruce, whom she considered her fiancé.
- In April, Mrs. Bruce discovered love letters from Beul to her husband and alerted the authorities; after being interviewed by a sheriff's deputy, Richard Bruce committed suicide.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristin Beul sued ASSE International for negligence in a U.S. District Court under diversity jurisdiction.
- A jury returned a special verdict finding Beul's total damages to be $1,100,000.
- The jury also found Beul to be 41% comparatively negligent for her own harm.
- The trial court entered a judgment against ASSE International for $649,000, representing 59% of the total damages.
- ASSE International, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an international student exchange organization's negligent failure to monitor a minor student constitute a legal cause of the harm resulting from sexual abuse by a host family member, even when the abuse is a criminal act?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Posner
Yes. An organization's negligent failure to monitor a minor is a legal cause of harm from foreseeable abuse because the abuser's criminal act is not a superseding cause when the organization's duty was specifically to protect against that very type of harm. The jury could reasonably infer that had ASSE's representative, Breber, exercised due care—such as by inquiring with the school about Beul's progress—she would have discovered the numerous absences, which would have led to the unraveling of the abusive situation. The defendant's argument that Bruce's criminal conduct was a superseding cause fails because the doctrine does not apply when the duty of care is precisely to protect against such conduct. ASSE's duty was to protect a foreign teenager from the foreseeable risk of sexual impropriety by a host family member; therefore, the occurrence of that very harm cannot legally sever the causal chain. Unlike a secondary protector such as an alarm company, ASSE stood in the shoes of Beul's parents and assumed a primary role in her protection, making the resulting harm a direct and foreseeable consequence of its negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high duty of care owed by organizations in a custodial or supervisory role over minors, particularly in situations involving special vulnerabilities. It significantly clarifies the application of the superseding cause doctrine, establishing that a third party's foreseeable criminal act does not absolve a defendant of liability if the defendant's specific duty was to prevent that type of criminal act. By distinguishing such organizations from 'secondary' protectors like alarm companies, the case sets a precedent that will make it more difficult for schools, childcare providers, and similar entities to escape liability for negligent supervision that results in foreseeable abuse.
Unlock the full brief for Beul v. ASSE Int'l, Inc.