Lexplug logoLexplug

Bjerke v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota
2007 WL 4532185, 2007 Minn. LEXIS 794, 742 N.W.2d 660 (2007)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A special relationship creating a duty to protect arises when a person takes custody of another under circumstances depriving the other of normal opportunities for self-protection, and the defense of primary assumption of the risk is unavailable as a matter of law in civil actions concerning the sexual abuse of a child.


Facts:

  • Johnson owned a horse farm where she lived with her adult boyfriend, Bohlman.
  • Bjerke, a minor teenager, began visiting the farm to ride horses, with her stays progressively increasing from weekends to entire summers.
  • Eventually, Bjerke moved into the farm full-time, during which Johnson provided room and board, set behavioral rules, and acted as a primary caregiver while Bjerke was away from her parents.
  • Bjerke and Bohlman engaged in a sexual relationship spanning several years while living in Johnson's home.
  • Johnson witnessed specific interactions between Bjerke and Bohlman, such as Bjerke sitting in Bohlman's lap, which Johnson characterized to others as 'inappropriate' and 'too sexual.'
  • Johnson told a friend she had to leave the house at times because the tension between Bjerke and Bohlman felt like a girlfriend relationship rather than a father-daughter dynamic.
  • Bjerke actively concealed the sexual nature of the relationship from Johnson and her parents.
  • Bohlman was later convicted of criminal sexual conduct regarding his actions with Bjerke.

Procedural Posture:

  • Bjerke sued Johnson in the district court for negligence based on failure to protect her from sexual abuse.
  • Johnson moved for summary judgment, arguing she had no duty and that Bjerke assumed the risk.
  • The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Johnson, dismissing the negligence claims.
  • Bjerke appealed the dismissal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, finding a special relationship existed.
  • Johnson petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for review.

Locked

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 a homeowner who takes a minor into her home for extended periods owe a duty to protect that minor from sexual abuse by another resident, and can a minor legally assume the risk of such abuse?


Opinions:

Majority - Hanson

Yes. The court held that a homeowner assumes a duty to protect a minor when a special relationship exists and that minors cannot assume the risk of sexual abuse. The court determined that a special relationship arises under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A when an individual takes custody of another who is deprived of normal opportunities for self-protection. Because Johnson provided housing and supervision to Bjerke away from her parents, Johnson had custody, and Bjerke was deprived of her parents' immediate protection. Furthermore, the court ruled that primary assumption of the risk is barred in child sexual abuse cases because public policy and the power imbalance inherent in such abuse make it impossible for a child to meaningfully consent to or assume the risks of sexual assault.


Concurring - Hanson

Yes. The concurring justice agreed with the result but argued that a special relationship was also established under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A. This section imposes liability when one undertakes to render services to another which are necessary for the protection of a third person. By providing the necessities of life to Bjerke, Johnson gratuitously undertook services that Bjerke's parents were otherwise obligated to provide, thereby assuming a duty of care.


Dissenting - G. Barry Anderson

No. The dissenting justice argued that no special relationship existed because Bjerke was not deprived of normal opportunities for self-protection. The dissent distinguished this case from situations involving young children, noting that Bjerke was a teenager capable of contacting her parents or others for help. The dissent contended that Johnson did not increase the risk of harm to Bjerke and that the parents retained ultimate legal authority and responsibility, meaning Johnson did not assume a duty to protect Bjerke from third-party criminal acts.



Analysis:

This decision significantly expands the potential liability of non-parental caregivers and homeowners who host minors for extended periods. By applying Restatement § 314A to a private home setting, the court established that de facto custody can create a legal duty to protect, even without a formal guardianship. Additionally, the ruling sets a firm precedent that the civil defense of assumption of the risk is incompatible with claims of child sexual abuse, aligning civil liability with criminal statutes that negate consent as a defense for minors. This prevents defendants from using a child's silence or 'consent' to avoid negligence liability.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bjerke v. Johnson (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"