J.S. and M.S. v. R.T.H.
714 A.2d 924 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a spouse has actual knowledge or a special reason to know of the likelihood that their spouse will engage in sexually abusive behavior against a particular person, the spouse has a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent or warn of the harm.
Facts:
- Defendants R.T.H. ('John') and R.G.H. ('Mary'), a married couple, were next-door neighbors with the plaintiffs and their two minor daughters, C.S. and M.S.
- John, aged 64, encouraged the two girls to visit his property daily to ride and care for his horses.
- The girls spent substantial amounts of time alone with John at his barn and on trail rides, a practice Mary was aware of.
- Over a period of more than a year, from 1991 to 1992, John sexually assaulted both girls.
- During the summer of 1992, on several occasions when Mary saw the girls with John in the barn, she stated to him, 'Oh. Your whores are here.'
- Also during that summer, Mary yelled 'You bitches' from her house window at the girls while they were on the property riding horses.
- Mary never confronted her husband about the amount of unsupervised time he was spending with the girls.
- John was subsequently arrested for his actions, pled guilty to endangering the welfare of minors, and was imprisoned.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs J.S. and M.S., on behalf of their minor daughters, filed a complaint against R.T.H. in a New Jersey trial court for intentional, reckless, and negligent sexual assault.
- Plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint, adding R.T.H.'s wife, R.G.H., as a defendant and alleging she was negligent.
- R.G.H. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing she owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of R.G.H.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
- Defendant-appellant R.G.H. petitioned for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court, which the court granted.
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 spouse have a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent or warn of harm when they have actual knowledge or a special reason to know of their spouse's likelihood of sexually abusing a particular person or persons?
Opinions:
Majority - Handler, J.
Yes. A spouse has a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent or warn of harm when they have actual knowledge or a special reason to know of the likelihood of their spouse engaging in sexually abusive behavior against a particular person or persons. The court determines the existence of a duty by balancing the foreseeability and severity of the harm, the opportunity to exercise care, the relationship between the parties, and considerations of public policy and fairness. The foundational element is a 'particularized foreseeability,' meaning the defendant must have a special reason to know that a specific person or identifiable class of persons is at risk. New Jersey's strong public policy of protecting children from sexual abuse, as evidenced by mandatory reporting statutes and 'Megan's Law,' outweighs the societal interest in preserving marital privacy. The court held that a breach of this duty can be a proximate cause of the victim's injuries because the continuation of sexual abuse is not a 'highly extraordinary' result of a spouse's failure to intervene or warn. The duty imposed is one of reasonable action, which could include confronting the abusing spouse, warning the victim or their parents, or ensuring no unsupervised contact occurs.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant common law duty of care in New Jersey, making a spouse potentially liable for the sexual torts of their partner. The court explicitly prioritizes the strong public policy of protecting children over the traditional legal deference given to marital harmony and privacy. By adopting a 'particularized foreseeability' standard, the ruling creates a basis for third-party negligence claims against a 'knowing' spouse, broadening the avenues for victim compensation. This case sets a precedent that will likely influence other jurisdictions considering the scope of duties owed by individuals to prevent harm caused by those close to them, particularly in the context of child abuse.
