The plaintiffs are Eric J. Smith, a minor, and Helen Smith. The defendant is Betty M. Figueroa, the mother of Robert Figueroa. Robert brought home his new girlfriend, plaintiff Helen Smith, and her eight-year-old son, plaintiff Eric J. Smith, a minor, to meet Robert’s mother, defendant Betty M. Figueroa. The relationship between Robert and Helen continued and Helen and Eric were guests several times in Betty’s home. No family member told Helen about Robert’s criminal history of felony child molestation. It was later discovered that Robert sexually molested Eric during some of these visits at his mother’s home, all the while Robert was on parole for child molestation. Robert was convicted of molesting Eric and sent back to prison. Helen filed a civil suit against Betty, claiming Betty had a duty to warn her about Robert’s criminal past and the potential danger to her child, and failing that duty that she were liable for money damages for the harm suffered by Eric. The trial court dismissed the case on a nonsuit motion.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court properly dismissed the negligence claim based on the premise that family members of a convicted child molester have no affirmative duty to disclose that information to the molester’s girlfriend who has an eight-year-old boy.
RULE
In the absence of a special relationship, family members of a convicted child molester, who have not created the danger or risk, have no affirmative duty to disclose information to another regarding the family member’s criminal past and potential danger.
ANALYSIS/APPLICATION
The appellate court placed great weight upon the “no duty to aid” rule, developed “over the centuries” in courts. The court noted that a special relationship is required to create a duty to warn, give aid, or otherwise help another. Ultimately, the court found that no such special relationship existed and found no other reason to suggest that the family members had a duty to warn the girlfriend. The court cited several cases, including a California Supreme Court case, Williams v. State of California, that establish the “no duty to aid” rule. In short, a person who has not created the danger or risk is not liable simply for failing to take an affirmative action unless there is “some relationship” that creates a “duty to act.” The court rejected a case that seemed to rule the other way, Soldano v. O’Daniels, by explaining that the facts in that case clearly showed that the defendant had actually prevented someone else from rendering aid. The court also noted that any decision to find a duty to aid in this case would interfere with family relationships by creating “intolerable conflicts of interest.” Impliedly, this went against public policy.
CONCLUSION
The appellate court found that the trial court was correct to dismiss the case on a nonsuit motion, and affirmed the lower case decision.