UK High Court ruled today that the Catholic Church 'liable' over priests' actions

the culture of deference · 08-11-2011 02:58PM #1

Great news, this will rock the church.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1108/breaking31.html

The High Court ruled today that the Catholic Church can be held liable for the wrongdoings of its priests.

A judge in London announced his decision in a case which has been described as being “an issue of wide general importance in respect of claims against the Catholic Church”.

Although the point to be decided arose in a damages action over alleged sex abuse by a priest, it is understood that the decision will affect other types of claims made against the Church.

a 47-year-old woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who claims she was sexually assaulted as a child by the late Fr Wilfred Baldwin, a priest of the Portsmouth Diocese, at a children’s home in Hampshire run by an order of nuns.

Giving his decision on a preliminary issue in her damages action the judge held that, in law, the Church “may be vicariously liable” for Father Baldwin’s alleged wrongdoings.

the culture of deference · 09-11-2011 03:02PM

Will anyone take a test case here now, with precedence set in an EEC European country.

mcmoustache · 09-11-2011 03:31PM

Paging The Quadratic Equasion, yutta, ISAW, gimmebroadband, Keaton etc to AH.

The One True Church(TM) is being bashed for abusing kids again and it needs The Defenders of the Indefensible.

Go Defenders!

the culture of deference · 09-11-2011 03:46PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

Paging The Quadratic Equasion, yutta, ISAW, gimmebroadband, Keaton etc to AH.

The One True Church(TM) is being bashed for abusing kids again and it needs The Defenders of the Indefensible.

Go Defenders!

The legal profession in the UK must be wetting themselves with excitement. The assets owned by the church are off any scale. They are the wealthiest organisation on the planet.

Can just see the ads on ITV now.

Have you been molested by a priest, or touched inappropriately.

Basically if everyone abused in this country took individual claims against the church now in the UK, the legal and financial ramifications to the church are disastrous.

The blurb below is from http://www.claims4free.co.uk/.

No Win No Fee compensation claims

"Making a personal injury claim in the UK should always involve no fees to the person who has received the accident injury as all legal costs should be paid by the third party should the compensation claim be successful. In the event that your accident injury claim is un-successful most injury solicitors will have already agreed to a no win no fee arrangement with the personal accident victim they are representing"

Bring it on

MetalDog · 09-11-2011 04:27PM

Another Nail in the church's coffin is always a good thing. Although the slimy bastards will probably try to worm out of this with "canon law" or some other schtick.

yutta · 09-11-2011 04:30PM

MetalDog wrote: »

Another Nail in the church's coffin is always a good thing. Although the slimy bastards will probably try to worm out of this with "canon law" or some other schtick.

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

MetalDog · 09-11-2011 04:33PM

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

Maybe if you pray hard enough your imaginary god will smite me

Ghost Buster · 09-11-2011 04:37PM

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

Whats not to be anti about?
Corrupt organisation with corruption at the top being brought down a peg or two and hit where it hurts. The pocket. Whats not to like?

And in answer to you question "Whatever next"?
Possibly anti other bad stuff?
KKK
Racism
Sexism
Terrorism
Violence
etc etc
You know. bad stuff.......

Wattle · 09-11-2011 04:38PM

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

I won't be shedding any tears for them. They completely brought it on themselves.

Ellis Dee · 09-11-2011 04:42PM

Serves that ghastly organisation right. It's a bit or an irony, though, that the church in England has tackled its kiddy-fiddling problem a lot more determinedly and honestly and with far greater success than its counterpart here on the Island of Saints and Scholars.:)

KeithAFC · 09-11-2011 04:45PM

Great news. They should be held accountable IMO.

FetchTheGin · 09-11-2011 04:48PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Serves that ghastly organisation right. It's a bit or an irony, though, that the church in England has tackled its kiddy-fiddling problem a lot more determinedly and honestly and with far greater success than its counterpart here on the Island of Saints and Scholars.:)

The catholic church doesn't just exist in Ireland. :rolleyes:

reprazant · 09-11-2011 04:53PM

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If an employee of Eircom runs somebody over, is Eircom liable? Is a SVPD volunteer abusing somebody while on a soup run, is the SVPD liable for the actions of that volunteer?

Pherekydes · 09-11-2011 04:53PM

If the church is responsible why don't all their priests become abusers?

And where does personal responsibility begin or end?

And will other organisations become liable for the crimes of their employees?

krudler · 09-11-2011 04:57PM

reprazant wrote: »

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If an employee of Eircom runs somebody over, is Eircom liable? Is a SVPD volunteer abusing somebody while on a soup run, is the SVPD liable for the actions of that volunteer?

last I heard eircom didnt hold victims accountable for being abused and use their influence in the community to keep it quiet for decades. if a company has partaken in covering up the illegal doings of a member then yes, they should be accountable. the church has been doing this for years, so fcuk em. vile organisation that deserves everything they get.

FetchTheGin · 09-11-2011 04:57PM

reprazant wrote: »

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

Yes they are, if they conceal or hide the fact that their employees are abusers and move them to a different area under a different name.

Robbo · 09-11-2011 05:00PM

reprazant wrote: »

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If an employee of Eircom runs somebody over, is Eircom liable? Is a SVPD volunteer abusing somebody while on a soup run, is the SVPD liable for the actions of that volunteer?

Yes and no, the principle of vicarious liability has been around for ages. It usually arises in employer/employee relationships where the employee has done some wrong.

The issue is whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment in performing the wrong, or with the approval of their employer.

The classic example would be a bouncer assaulting a punter, if the pub owner expected or encouraged the bouncer to use this kind of force, he is liable for the actions of the bouncer. Of course there are limits to this, say if the bouncer chases the punter down the road for the purposes of giving him a hiding.

Wattle · 09-11-2011 05:05PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

If the church is responsible why don't all their priests become abusers?

And where does personal responsibility begin or end?

And will other organisations become liable for the crimes of their employees?

You don't just decide to be an abuser because the organisation you work for covers it up. You either are an abuser or your not.

reprazant · 09-11-2011 05:11PM

Robbo wrote: »

Yes and no, the principle of vicarious liability has been around for ages. It usually arises in employer/employee relationships where the employee has done some wrong.

The issue is whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment in performing the wrong, or with the approval of their employer.

The classic example would be a bouncer assaulting a punter, if the pub owner expected or encouraged the bouncer to use this kind of force, he is liable for the actions of the bouncer. Of course there are limits to this, say if the bouncer chases the punter down the road for the purposes of giving him a hiding.

I don't think what the priests were doing was with in the scope of their employment though nor was it with the approval of their employer, even though they did cover things up to protect itself.

A few years ago, on a work night out, two work colleagues got in a fight with another person due to that person hitting a female work colleague. This was done in front of the boss and the boss did nothing to stop it. He, in fact, nearly encouraged it.

By rational of this ruling, that company was therefore liable for damages from that person that got beaten up.

I can't see how this will stand up on appeal.

Fratton Fred · 09-11-2011 05:17PM

reprazant wrote: »

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If an employee of Eircom runs somebody over, is Eircom liable? Is a SVPD volunteer abusing somebody while on a soup run, is the SVPD liable for the actions of that volunteer?

If eircom give someone a van, knowing that person can't drive then they are liable.

Just as if an organisation is aware of a peado and they cover it up, or move them, they are liable if that peado offends again.

If an organisation is negligent, or does nothing as soon as it is aware of a problem, they become corporately liable.

mcmoustache · 09-11-2011 05:17PM

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

Glad you could make it.

Where are the rest of The Defenders of The Indefensible?

Still working out what kind of spin to put on this to make disgust at abuse by priests and the One True Church who covered for them look like anti-Catholic bigotry?

Maybe working out a way to blacken the name of the victim?

It'll be interesting to read what they have to say when they get here.

Go Defenders!

humanji · 09-11-2011 05:18PM

reprazant wrote: »

I don't think what the priests were doing was with in the scope of their employment though nor was it with the approval of their employer, even though they did cover things up to protect itself.

A few years ago, on a work night out, two work colleagues got in a fight with another person due to that person hitting a female work colleague. This was done in front of the boss and the boss did nothing to stop it. He, in fact, nearly encouraged it.

By rational of this ruling, that company was therefore liable for damages from that person that got beaten up.

I can't see how this will stand up on appeal.

The Catholic Church isn't a company, though. I think that's what the difference is (although it's just a guess). The priests aren't employees, they are part of an organisation and everything they have belongs to that organisation. So you can't claim compensation from the priest without it coming from the organisation. That's the way I see it.

UglyBolloxFace · 09-11-2011 05:18PM

This may or may not be relevant but I just want to say this:

I despise and am disgusted by religion and deluded people who fall for it.

That is all.

reprazant · 09-11-2011 05:22PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If eircom give someone a van, knowing that person can't drive then they are liable.

Just as if an organisation is aware of a peado and they cover it up, or move them, they are liable if that peado offends again.

If an organisation is negligent, or does nothing as soon as it is aware of a problem, they become corporately liable.

Fair enough, I didn't know that this was already the case.

prinz · 09-11-2011 05:24PM

humanji wrote: »

The Catholic Church isn't a company, though. I think that's what the difference is (although it's just a guess). The priests aren't employees, they are part of an organisation and everything they have belongs to that organisation. So you can't claim compensation from the priest without it coming from the organisation. That's the way I see it.

Yes and no, the judge in the judgement today decided that the relationship between priest and bishop was enough for him to decide it effectively constituted an employer/employee relationship which reinforces the way compensation for victims have been dealt with up till now. It's classic tort theory the 'deep pocket' theory, i.e. that the employer/company will have a bigger pile of cash to pay compensation out of than an employee.

It's all academic though since the RCC as an organisation has already been paying out compensation to victims of specific individual priests. People are reacting as if this decision is some major breakthrough, all it does is establish in precedent case law what as already been happening for years, i.e. that compensation for victims came from a RCC fund, rather than compensation being sought for and coming from the individual abuser priests. It's easy to whip up a bandwagon it seems. Even when half of them don't seem to have a clue what they are celebrating.

padd b1975 · 09-11-2011 05:28PM

FetchTheGin wrote: »

Yes they are, if they conceal or hide the fact that their employees are abusers and move them to a different area under a different name.

Different names??
Never heard of that happening before.

Robbo · 09-11-2011 05:29PM

reprazant wrote: »

I don't think what the priests were doing was with in the scope of their employment though nor was it with the approval of their employer, even though they did cover things up to protect itself.

A few years ago, on a work night out, two work colleagues got in a fight with another person due to that person hitting a female work colleague. This was done in front of the boss and the boss did nothing to stop it. He, in fact, nearly encouraged it.

By rational of this ruling, that company was therefore liable for damages from that person that got beaten up.

I can't see how this will stand up on appeal.

I'm perhaps not summing the position up in the most succinct manner, but there are countless examples of employers being found vicariously liable for the acts of their employees. For an overview, here's the Wikipedia entry on the UK situation which is similar enough to ours. In Ireland, we tend to follow a more holistic test than the say the Salmond test.

We have plenty of sexual abuse cases here where the institutions were found vicariously liable, such as Martin Delahunty v The South Eastern Health Board, St Joseph's Industrial School Kilkenny, The Minister for Education and Science for example.

Does your workplace have a policy of ye beating the lard out of each other or expect a certain degree of force to be used in the workplace? If not, your example doesn't really hold.

padd b1975 · 09-11-2011 05:30PM

FetchTheGin wrote: »

Yes they are, if they conceal or hide the fact that their employees are abusers and move them to a different area under a different name.

Different names??
Never heard of that happening before.

the culture of deference · 09-11-2011 05:45PM

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

LOL

Some 1.38 billion has been paid out by the State so far and the Government are still awaiting the agreed contribution from the orders..

reprazant wrote: »

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If the organisation requires you to hear voices in your head, telling you to join them, and spread the imaginary word, then yes.

prinz wrote: »

It's all academic though since the RCC as an organisation has already been paying out compensation to victims of specific individual priests..

What this means is that the assets of the RCC will not be protected, as it is they hide behing statehood, private unlisted assets, and they control what happens. This is a big deal.

yutta · 09-11-2011 05:47PM

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I despise and am disgusted by religion and deluded people who fall for it.

It would be interesting to hear how you address the meaning of life questions.

I'd say it's very shallow and il-thought-out. Now what is it they say about empty vessels?

Let me guess: A bit of debonair nihilism and whatever you're having yourself is it?

prinz · 09-11-2011 05:49PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

What this means is that the assets of the RCC will not be protected, as it is they hide behing statehood, private unlisted assets, and they control what happens. This is a big deal.

No. It means none of those things.

What it does mean is that one woman who took a test case may be entitled to compensation from the diocese and diocesan authorities where her alleged abuse took place, as opposed from the alleged abuser himself. Basically it states in a legal decision what has been the normal practice for years. The only assets it opens up are those of the individual diocese itself. The judgement says nothing about the relationship between the Vatican and the priest, only between the priest and the diocesan authorities starting with the bishop.

It does not mean victims are suddenly going to be entitled to €100 million direct from the Vatican.

UK High Court ruled today that the Catholic Church 'liable' over priests' actions

Comments