J.S. v. R.T.H.
714 A.2d 924, 1998 N.J. LEXIS 635, 155 N.J. 330 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse may be held liable in negligence for failing to prevent or warn of sexual abuse committed by their partner if they have actual knowledge or a special reason to know of the likelihood of such abuse against an identifiable person or persons.
Facts:
- John and Mary H. moved into a house in Vineland, New Jersey, and became next-door neighbors to J.S. and M.S. and their two daughters, C.S. (12 years old) and M.S. (15 years old).
- John, 64, owned horses and a barn, and encouraged C.S. and M.S. to visit daily to ride and help care for the horses.
- John often took at least the older girl horseback riding on various trails, usually as the only adult present, while Mary never joined them.
- During the summer of 1992, Mary frequently entered the barn, saw John with the girls, and made disparaging comments to him like, “Oh. Your whores are here,” or yelled “You bitches” to the girls from the house.
- Mary never confronted John about the significant amount of unsupervised time he spent alone with either or both of the girls.
- John sexually assaulted the two girls over a period of more than a year, from 1991 until his arrest in November 1992.
- John later pled guilty to endangering the welfare of minors and was sentenced to state prison.
- For the purposes of argument in court, Mary conceded that “at all relevant times” she “knew or should have known of her husband’s proclivities/propensities.”
Procedural Posture:
- J.S. and M.S., as parents and guardians ad litem of their daughters C.S. and M.S., filed a complaint against John H. in the trial court, alleging intentional, reckless, and/or negligent acts of sexual assault.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Mary H. as a defendant, alleging that she was negligent because she knew or should have known of her husband’s proclivities/propensities.
- Mary H. filed a motion for summary judgment, contending there was no legal basis for finding her negligent.
- The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Mary H.
- The Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment order, finding it premature, and remanded for entry of an order granting plaintiffs extended discovery (Mary H. was the appellant, J.S. and M.S. were the appellees).
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted Mary H.'s petition for certification (Mary H. was the appellant, J.S. and M.S. were the appellees).
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 who has actual knowledge or special reason to know of the likelihood of their partner engaging in sexually abusive behavior against a particular child or children have a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent or warn of the harm, and if so, does a breach of that duty constitute a proximate cause of the resulting harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Handler, J.
Yes, a spouse who has actual knowledge or special reason to know of the likelihood of their partner engaging in sexually abusive behavior against a particular person or persons has a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent or warn of the harm, and a breach of such a duty constitutes a proximate cause of the resultant injury. The Court determined that establishing a duty requires a balancing of several factors, including the foreseeability and severity of the harm, the opportunity to prevent it, the parties' comparative interests and relationships, and public policy considerations. The Court found that New Jersey has a strong and obvious public policy to protect children from sexual abuse, as evidenced by numerous statutes, including child abuse reporting laws (N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10) and Megan's Law. While these statutes do not establish a basis for civil liability as negligence per se, a violation of the child abuse reporting statute may serve as evidence of negligence in relevant circumstances. The Court acknowledged the societal interest in marital privacy but concluded it cannot outweigh the interest in protecting children from abuse, stating that "the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins." Due to the clandestine nature of child sexual abuse, a spouse is often uniquely positioned to observe warning signs. The duty established is flexible, requiring reasonable steps such as confronting the abuser, limiting unsupervised access to children, increasing supervision, or warning the victims or their parents. The Court further found that a spouse's failure to prevent or warn of sexual abuse is not a "highly extraordinary consequence" and thus can be a proximate cause of the resulting harm. The Court concluded that summary judgment in Mary's favor was premature, as further discovery, particularly deposing John, was necessary to fully assess Mary's knowledge and whether she took reasonable actions.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of tort liability for spouses in New Jersey, establishing a legal duty to protect third parties from a partner's foreseeable sexual abuse. It decisively prioritizes child protection over traditional marital privacy and immunity doctrines, aligning common law with strong legislative policies against child abuse. The ruling provides an important civil remedy complementing statutory protections, offering victims an additional avenue for recourse and compelling individuals in unique positions to prevent abuse to act responsibly.
