Does creating internal abuse prevention resources create tort liability for religious organizations? MacGregor v. Walker Explained

In MacGregor v. Walker, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a religious organization’s creation of internal resources to help clergy handle abuse cases creates a tort duty to abuse victims under section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

Background and Facts

Kareena MacGregor, a victim of sexual abuse, met with her LDS bishop Douglas Walker on two occasions seeking help to stop the abuse. The LDS Church had established a Help Line—a 24-hour resource staffed by legal and counseling professionals to assist bishops in handling abuse situations and ensure compliance with reporting statutes. Walker was aware of the Help Line but did not call it regarding MacGregor’s case. MacGregor later sued Walker and the Church, arguing they voluntarily assumed a duty to protect abuse victims by creating the Help Line.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the Church’s creation of the Help Line gave rise to a tort duty under section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which imposes liability when one voluntarily undertakes to render protective services and either increases the risk of harm or causes harm through the victim’s reliance on the undertaking.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants without reaching whether the Church actually undertook to render services to MacGregor. Instead, the court focused on whether the Help Line increased MacGregor’s risk of harm. The court held that Walker’s failure to use the Help Line did not place MacGregor in a worse position than she would have been in had the Help Line never existed. The court emphasized that section 323(a) requires “some change in conditions that increases the risk of harm to the plaintiff over the level that existed before the defendant became involved.”

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important limits on voluntary undertaking liability and provides crucial protection for organizations that create internal resources to address social problems. The court’s public policy analysis emphasized that imposing tort duties on organizations for creating beneficial programs would discourage such efforts. For appellate practitioners, this case demonstrates the importance of focusing on whether a defendant’s actions actually worsened the plaintiff’s position rather than merely failing to improve it when challenging voluntary undertaking claims.