A nonprofit summer camp has no duty to protect a camper who was sexually assaulted in November while on a trip with a camp volunteer, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine has held.  It has affirmed a trial court decision granting summary judgment to dismiss the case.  (Gniadek v. Camp Sunshine at Sebago Lake, No. Cum-10-61, 1/13/11.)

The young woman attended the camp for children with chronic or life-threatening illnesses and their families for a week in 2005.  A 58-year-old man who had no prior experience working with children was a volunteer that summer.  The camp had contacted his references, who gave him favorable recommendations.  When a young woman volunteer complained that she felt uncomfortable in his presence after he had given her a gift, the camp recommended that she limit contact with him.  The camp director spoke to the volunteer, and obtained a criminal background check and driver’s history, both of which were negative.

The young woman attended the camp with her mother.  At the end of the season, the volunteer asked whether he could keep in touch with them and the mother agreed.  In November, the volunteer asked the girl to go with him to visit another camp family, which her mother approved.  On the trip, he assaulted the girl, and was ultimately convicted.  The camp was unaware of the trip.

The Court said the camp had no duty to protect the camper unless one of two exceptions applied:  the camp stood in a special relationship with her or the harm was created by the camp. 

The girl argued that both exceptions applied because the camp had a fiduciary relationship with her and a custodial relationship, which gave rise to a claim for negligent supervision. 

The Court rejected the argument that a fiduciary relationship existed.  It had previously found a special relationship in a case involving abuse of a parochial school student by a priest and in one involving a great disparity of position and influence between a patient with a serious mental condition and a hospital.  In this case, the Court said, the girl spent one week a summer at the camp, participated in a few fundraising events and maintained social contact with some campers, volunteers and staff.  It said her relationship was “indistinguishable from that of other campers.”  Furthermore, it said, the camp did not exercise significant influence over her and had only “a limited presence” in her life.

The camp also had no responsibility when it had no custodial relationship, the Court said.  The incident took place more than two months after she left the camp. 

As to apparent authority, the Court said that the volunteer told the girl when he invited her on the trip that he was finished with camp.  But even assuming that it would be reasonable to assume that he still acted on behalf of the camp, “the sexual assault was not committed with apparent authority.”

YOU NEED TO KNOW

Organizations are usually not liable for the intentional wrongs of their agents that are clearly outside the scope of their authority, and the plaintiff was not able to show any special relationship here that would cause an exception to the general rule.