Marquay v. Eno
1995 N.H. LEXIS 80, 139 N.H. 708, 662 A.2d 272 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that imposes a duty and a criminal penalty for non-compliance, such as a mandatory child abuse reporting law, does not create an implied private right of action for civil damages unless the legislature expressly or implicitly intended to create one. However, defendants may still be liable under common law theories of negligence, such as negligent supervision or negligent hiring, where a special relationship or duty of care exists.
Facts:
- Lisa Bums, a student at Mascoma Valley Regional School District, was sexually abused by her teacher, Brian Erskine, beginning in her sophomore year and continuing after graduation.
- Jennifer Snyder, another student, was sexually abused by her coach and teacher, Michael Eno, from the seventh grade until after her graduation.
- A third student, identified as Yvonne Marquay, was sexually abused by Eno starting in the seventh grade and by another teacher, Brian Adams, beginning in high school.
- The students allege that numerous other school employees, including other teachers, coaches, superintendents, principals, and secretaries, were aware or should have been aware of the ongoing sexual abuse.
- The legal complaints did not specify where the sexual abuse occurred or whether it took place during school hours.
Procedural Posture:
- Three former students (plaintiffs) filed separate complaints in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
- The plaintiffs sued school employees, the school district, and school administrative units (defendants) under various state and federal legal theories.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss several of the state law claims against them.
- The U.S. District Court, finding the state law issues uncertain, certified five questions of law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.
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 New Hampshire's mandatory child abuse reporting statute, RSA 169-C:29, create a private right of action for damages against school employees and districts who fail to report known or suspected abuse?
Opinions:
Majority - Horton, J.
No. The New Hampshire mandatory child abuse reporting statute does not create a private right of action for its violation. The court distinguished between a statutorily created cause of action and the doctrine of negligence per se. A private right of action under a statute exists only when the legislature shows an express or implied intent to create one, which was absent here. Furthermore, the doctrine of negligence per se (where a statutory violation serves as the standard of care for negligence) is inapplicable to a negligent supervision claim because the statutory duty to report is substantially different from the common law duty to supervise. However, the court recognized that schools have a common law duty to protect students based on a 'special relationship' that arises from compulsory attendance, which impairs a student's and parent's ability to provide protection. This duty of reasonable supervision falls on employees with supervisory responsibility. The court also affirmed that a school district and its hiring officials can be held liable for negligent hiring or retention if they knew or should have known of an employee’s propensity for abuse, and there is a causal connection between the employment and the student's injury. Finally, the court declined to create a new 'constitutional tort' because existing common law remedies for the alleged harms were adequate.
Analysis:
This case provides a critical clarification of the relationship between statutory violations and civil tort liability in New Hampshire. By distinguishing between an implied private right of action and negligence per se, the court established a clear analytical framework that prevents the automatic conversion of every statutory duty into a basis for civil lawsuits. The decision reinforces the 'special relationship' doctrine between schools and students, defining the scope of a school's common law duty to supervise and protect against foreseeable harm. This precedent significantly impacts litigation against schools by grounding liability in established common law duties of care (like supervision and hiring) rather than in the mere failure to comply with a reporting statute.
Unlock the full brief for Marquay v. Eno