MO Court of Appeals says National Boy Scouts not responsible for

Daily Record and the Kansas City Daily News-Press, Nov 24, 2004 by Stephanie Mitchum Murphy

In an affirmed opinion, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District found Boy Scouts of America Inc. and its national officer were not liable to a former Boy Scout who was molested by a troop leader.

In Lance Hobbs, Appellant v. Boy Scouts of America Inc. and Jerre Ratcliff, Respondent, Heart of America Council, Inc. Respondent and Richard Green, Defendant, the former Boy Scout sued the Boy Scouts of America, the Heart of America Council of the Boy Scouts and Jerre Ratcliff, an officer of Boy Scouts of America for the 1989 incident.

The former scout alleged the national organization failed to warn him about the risk of molestation by scout leaders. In addition, he claimed the scouting program is a product and he sought recovery under the theory of strict liability for defective product and for failure to warn of an unreasonable risk.

The trial court denied his claims and granted a summary judgment for the Boy Scouts and the other parties. On appeal, the Western District agreed with the trial court's decision.

Case Background

When the former Boy Scout was 11 years old, he was picked up by a troop leader for an overnight camping trip with his troop. Instead, the leader took him to his home and molested him and then proceeded to take him to a restaurant and to Worlds of Fun the next morning.

His molestation and that of other boys were discovered in 1990 and the troop leader was sentenced to prison.

Later, he brought the lawsuits against the national Boy Scouts and other parties. In its opinion, the COA noted the former Boy Scout did not sue local troop officers or the chartering and sponsoring organization of the local troop which he was associated.

The former Boy Scout's attorney, David Bony said he did not bring the suit against the local chartering organization because the chartering organization was not privy to the knowledge that other molestation incidents were common in Boy Scout troops.

The local charters don't know about the nature and extent of the pedophile problem, Bony said.

He said he outlined the past history of abuses in other Boy Scout troops in his brief to the COA, however, it was not discussed in the opinion.

In the lawsuit, the former Boy Scout alleged three counts against the parties. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds there was no dispute of material fact. The circuit court granted the summary judgment and the former Boy Scout appealed.

The Appeal

Judge James M. Smart first discussed the former Boy Scout's claims. In the first of three counts against the defendants, the former Boy Scout argued they were negligent for not warning him about his risks.

Plaintiff's claim, in essence is that the Boy Scout program attracts pedophiles; that Earl Fleer was attracted to scouting and to Hobbs because Fleer was a pedophile; and that Defendants were at fault because they knew of the unreasonable risk of children being abused by pedophiles and did not warn Plaintiff Hobbs about pedophiles or educate Plaintiff Hobbs about improper scout leader behavior and what to do about it, he wrote.

But neither the trial court nor the Western District found the parties in this case to have any control over what happened to the victim.

It is clear that neither the Boy Scouts of America, nor the Heart of America Council, nor Jerre Ratliff has any day-to-day control over the activities of the local chartering organizations, Judge Smart wrote.

Kansas City attorney Wayne Taff of Sherman, Taff & Bangert, PC represented the Boy Scouts of America. He said this opinion is consistent with other decisions where the national organization has been sued.

The national Boy Scouts do not control local charters and therefore are not responsible for things that take place within local troops, Taff said.

However, Bony said there is a reason for this organizational structure.

They chose not to have anything to do with the local troops, Bony said.

The COA found that even though the incident took place while the troop leader was supposed to be taking the former Boy Scout to the camping trip associated with his local troop, this did not have anything to do with the national organization.

Hobbs is not able to show that these defendants authorized the campout in question or had anything to do with authorizing or encouraging Fleer to pick up Hobbs to take him to the campout, Judge Smart wrote.

Next, the COA looked at the second and third counts against the parties which alleged they should be liable under products liability because he claimed scouting is a product.

Bony said his client believed the national Boy Scouts had a knowledge of previous abuse incidents and therefore they had the duty to warn parents of the danger of the Boy Scout product.

We felt that knowledge created a duty for them to warn parents, he said.

However, the Western District did not find his arguments that scouting is a product under the Restatement of Torts (third) definition. It denied both of the arguments.

Judges Breckenridge and Howard concurred with Smart's opinion.