On leave granted in this child sexual abuse case, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to defendants Watchtower Bible and Trust Society of New York, Inc. and East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (defendants).
Plaintiff C.P., now an adult, was sexually abused by her grandfather in the 1970's and 1980's. He was authorized to serve as an elder for defendants' congregations. Plaintiff alleges defendants owed her a "special duty" to protect her from her grandfather's sexual criminal acts because they knew he had engaged in sexual conduct with at least three minors, including herself, but did not discipline him and negligently retained him as an elder.
In 1994, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her grandfather and other family members, which resulted in a sizeable jury award in her favor. Plaintiff did not name defendants in the 1994 lawsuit because the Charitable Immunity Act (CIA) as it existed at the time precluded actions against non-profit, educational, and religious institutions for willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct resulting in sexual abuse. In 1995, the CIA was amended to permit such causes of action. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a). In 2006, the CIA was again amended to provide an exception to immunity for negligence claims where the supervision, hiring, and retention of an employee, agent, or servant led to sexual abuse. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7.4.
In 2021, plaintiff filed suit against defendants under the Child Victims Act (CVA), L. 2019, c. 120, which provided a two-year revival window for victims to file otherwise time-barred claims for sexual crimes committed against them while minors. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(b). The CVA also amended the CIA to allow retroactive liability against religious and other organizations. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 and N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(b).
The court agreed with the trial court that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff's claims asserted in her 2021 complaint were not cognizable under the CIA in 1994. The court further found the trial court properly supported its decisions rejecting the applicability of the entire controversy doctrine and judicial estoppel.