Utah Court of Appeals
Does a religious organization owe a duty to warn members about abuse by other members? Doe v. Church of JC of LDS Explained
Summary
Jane Doe and her son John sued the LDS Church for negligence after learning the Church had received complaints about George Tilson’s sexual abuse but failed to warn members. The trial court dismissed their claims, finding Jane’s claims were time-barred and John’s claims were statutorily barred under Utah Code section 78-12-25.1(5).
Analysis
In Doe v. Church of JC of LDS, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether religious organizations have a legal duty to warn members about known dangerous individuals within their congregation. The case arose from sexual abuse allegations spanning decades and raises important questions about institutional responsibility.
Background and Facts
Jane Doe and her son John were members of the LDS Church who alleged sexual abuse by George Tilson, a fellow church member who held positions as High Priest and scout leader. The plaintiffs claimed the Church received multiple complaints about Tilson’s abuse from 1966 through 2002 but actively concealed this information and allowed Tilson to continue in leadership positions. Jane was abused in 1976 at age thirteen, and John was abused between 1993-1996 at approximately age five. Both incidents occurred in Tilson’s home, not on church property or during church activities.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the Church had a common law duty to warn the plaintiffs about Tilson’s dangerous propensities. Under Utah law, such duties typically arise only when a special relationship exists that creates either: (1) a duty to control a third person’s conduct, or (2) a right to protection for the victim.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the analysis from Higgins v. Salt Lake County, examining whether special relationships existed between the Church and either Tilson or the plaintiffs. Regarding Tilson, the court found no custody or control relationship despite his church positions, noting he was not an employee, agent, or clergy member, and the abuse was unconnected to church activities. As to the plaintiffs, the court rejected the argument that church membership alone created a special relationship, emphasizing that providing “faith-based advice or instruction, without more, does not create a special relationship.”
Practice Implications
This decision establishes important boundaries for institutional liability claims. Practitioners should focus on demonstrating specific custody, control, or supervisory relationships rather than relying on general authority structures or membership status when establishing duty in institutional abuse cases.
Case Details
Case Name
Doe v. Church of JC of LDS
Citation
2004 UT App 274
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20030511-CA
Date Decided
August 19, 2004
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A religious organization has no common law duty to warn members about potential abuse by other members absent a special relationship involving custody or control.
Standard of Review
Correctness standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as a question of law
Practice Tip
When challenging duty determinations in institutional abuse cases, focus on establishing specific custody, control, or supervisory relationships rather than general membership or authority structures.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.