The District Court of Delaware reached a similar holding in Voe #2 v. The
Archdiocese of Milwaukee.33 In Voe #2, Plaintiff asserted an agency relationship
existed between moving defendants and Brother David Nickerson (“Nickerson”) and,
based on this relationship, moving defendants should be held accountable for
Nickerson’s alleged tortious conduct in Delaware.34 The Court held that Plaintiff
failed to assert facts to establish this relationship because he was not employed by
moving defendants.35 The Court continued its rational and held that even if an
employment relationship existed, Plaintiff failed to show how Nickerson’s conduct
related to his employment and failed to assert specific facts that moving defendants
McAlinden took Naples across state lines as part of his 'official business', so I think the defendants are cooked here. But we'll see. Usually an entity like a school in a similar situation with a student/teacher, would have to have done something, like ignored complaints, a pattern of complaints, etc, to be found liable.
Edit: Naples alleges they knew so... if true, bad times for the church.
""This has never been about the money," Naples said. "It’s about exposing him for the monster that he is, and it’s about transparency in the diocese. They knew about McAlinden. They could have done something about it. And they did what every other diocese did. They kept it hush-hush and paid behind-the-scenes settlements.""
= new reply since forum marked as read
