Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church
1991 Alas. LEXIS 22, 1991 WL 41934, 808 P.2d 1211 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony diagnosing child sexual abuse and a child victim's out-of-court statements identifying an abuser, if possessing sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, are admissible under Alaska Evidence Rules 702, 703, and 803(23) respectively, and their exclusion may constitute reversible error in a summary judgment determination. Organizations providing childcare owe a high duty of care in screening employees, and failure to conduct adequate background checks can preclude summary judgment on negligent supervision claims.
Facts:
- In 1983, Judith Broderick and Gene Jansen attended King’s Way Assembly of God Church, leaving their three-year-old daughter, J.S.J., in the church’s “tiny tots” program.
- In mid-1983, Shirley Gilman replaced Sue McNiece as the supervisor of the “tiny tots” program, often having at least one assistant.
- Shortly after Gilman took over, Broderick observed J.S.J. exhibiting behavioral changes, including reluctance to attend “tiny tots,” screaming and crying near the church, red rashes, reluctance to remove panties, and complaints of genital pain.
- On March 25 and April 8, 1984, after J.S.J. visited the church with her father, Broderick noticed blood spotting on J.S.J.’s panties and blood in the toilet after a difficult bowel movement.
- On June 21, 1984, after watching a news program on child abuse, Broderick spoke with J.S.J. who stated that “The mean lady at the church hurt her wee-wee.”
- On July 1, 1984, Broderick and Hans Dieter Polak took J.S.J. to King’s Way Church, where J.S.J. became frightened and struggled upon approaching the “tiny tots” room, and upon seeing Shirley Gilman, identified her as “the mean lady — that’s the lady who hurt my wee-wee.”
- Shirley Gilman had been sexually abused as a child by her natural father and stepfather, and physically abused as an adult by her first husband.
- King’s Way Church did not interview Gilman or conduct a background check before hiring her to supervise the “tiny tots” program.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 23, 1987, Judith Broderick filed a complaint on behalf of her daughter, J.S.J., against Shirley Gilman, alleging sexual abuse, and against King's Way Assembly of God Church, alleging negligent supervision and hiring, in superior court (the trial court/court of first instance).
- In July 1988, Shirley Gilman moved for summary judgment, asserting she never abused J.S.J., and King's Way Church joined this motion.
- Broderick opposed the summary judgment motion, submitting police statements and later an affidavit from Dr. Lee Maxwell, an expert in child sex abuse cases, and a supplemental affidavit of her own.
- On December 13, 1988, the superior court granted Gilman's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Dr. Maxwell's affidavit was inadmissible due to 'credibility problems' and Broderick's testimony of J.S.J.'s declarations of abuse were inadmissible hearsay.
- Thereafter, King's Way Church submitted its own motion for summary judgment, which was also granted by the superior court.
- Broderick appealed the superior court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of both Gilman and King's Way Church to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the superior court err in granting summary judgment against Broderick by improperly excluding expert testimony and child hearsay identification under the Alaska Rules of Evidence, and by finding insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue for negligent supervision against King's Way Assembly of God Church?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, Justice
Yes, the superior court erred in granting summary judgment against Broderick, as she presented sufficient admissible evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding the abuse, the identity of the abuser, and the church's negligent supervision. First, the court held that Broderick's observations of blood on J.S.J.'s panties and Dr. Maxwell's expert affidavit regarding child sexual abuse and post-traumatic stress were admissible. The trial court improperly weighed Dr. Maxwell's credibility, which is a role for the factfinder, not the court on summary judgment. Dr. Maxwell's expert opinion, relying on his interview and a counselor's report, was admissible under Alaska Evidence Rules 702 (assisting the jury) and 703 (experts can rely on otherwise inadmissible hearsay if reasonably relied upon in the field). The expert did not vouch for J.S.J.'s truthfulness but offered a clinical opinion consistent with sexual molestation and post-traumatic stress. Second, J.S.J.'s out-of-court statements identifying Gilman as her abuser, though hearsay, were admissible under the residual exception of Alaska Evidence Rule 803(23). The court found these statements possessed sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness due to J.S.J.'s spontaneity in identifying an abuser not suggested by her mother, her young age (three and a half years old, considered less capable of deception by experts), her use of childish terminology, and the consistency of her statements. The credibility of those reporting the hearsay is a matter for the jury. The statements concerned a material fact, were highly probative, and their admission served the interest of justice. Finally, the court concluded that summary judgment for King's Way Church was improper. The church, engaged in caring for young children, had a high duty of care in selecting employees. King's Way failed to interview Gilman or conduct a background check, and the evidence did not, as a matter of law, demonstrate that the church exercised due care in screening her, especially given her personal history which, according to some experts, could be a predisposing condition for child sexual abuse. Thus, there were material facts for a jury to determine regarding negligent supervision.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the types of evidence admissible in child sexual abuse cases, particularly by clarifying the standards for expert testimony on post-traumatic stress and the admissibility of child victims' hearsay identifications. It reinforces the principle that courts cannot weigh witness credibility when deciding summary judgment motions, ensuring that potentially powerful evidence in sensitive cases reaches a jury. Furthermore, the ruling establishes a high standard of care for organizations that supervise children, emphasizing the critical importance of thorough background checks and screening processes to prevent negligent hiring, potentially leading to increased liability for institutions that fail to meet this standard.
