In Doe v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (D OR, Sept. 8, 2026), an Oregon federal district court dismissed negligence claims against the LDS Church brought by the survivor of sexual abuse perpetrated by her father, Craig Ford, while he was an Elder in the Church. Plaintiff was adopted by the Ford family in 2014 and Craig Ford began sexually abusing her a year later when she was 15 years old. In April 2016, Jennifer Ford reported her husband's misconduct” to an LDS Stake President. In February 2017, an LDS bishop was informed about allegations against Craig and that he was living alone with his daughter. No LDS official took any action. The court said in part:
Plaintiff argues that there are several sources that create a duty that required Defendants to protect her from her father’s abuse: (1) common law ordinary negligence; (2) special relationship or circumstances, including a statutory duty to report and negligent performance of an undertaking; and (3) a failure to warn.... However, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to show Defendants owed Plaintiff a legal duty to protect her from abuse by her father that occurred outside of any church function or facility....
Plaintiff unconvincingly argues that Defendants’ failure to act was in fact an affirmative action that created a foreseeable risk of additional sexual, verbal, mental, and emotional abuse. No reasonable factfinder could agree based on the alleged facts....
Because Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient for an ordinary negligence claim, she must allege the existence of a special relationship or special circumstances that imposed a duty on Defendants....
An allegation of church membership by itself does not create a special relationship....
While at times Plaintiff was under the supervision of Defendants, she does not allege that any of the abuse she suffered occurred during those times of supervision. Any special duty of care that existed when Plaintiff was under the control of Defendants ended when she returned to her father’s custody....
... And Plaintiff does not point to controlling authority that convinces this Court that Oregon’s reporting statutes alone are sufficient to manufacture a negligence claim under a special negligence theory....
If Plaintiff’s claim was permitted to advance, any well-intentioned entity with generalized policies aimed at preventing and responding to sexual abuse could be subject to liability for harm caused outside their supervisory control. Plaintiff’s preferred understanding of negligence law would likely discourage such entities from developing or maintaining any sexual abuse-related policies at all. This Court is not willing at this time to test such a prediction....
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that because Defendants had specialized knowledge of the abuse and its severe, foreseeable consequences, they had a duty to warn Plaintiff of long-term emotional and psychological injuries resulting from continued abuse....
... [A] trier of fact could not reasonably find that a warning from Defendants would have prevented the harm. Plaintiff already knew of the harm (e.g., continued sexual abuse by her father) by the time Defendants learned about the abuse. Moreover, government authorities were already investigating the alleged abuse by the time Defendants first learned about it....
[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]
