The Liability of Clergy for the Acts of Their Congregants
Mark Herman, 98 Geo. L.J. 153 (2009)
This Note argues that when clergy engage in relationships directly analogous to special relationships in tort law, they, too, have a duty to protect third parties. Because much clerical activity involves counseling, I argue that the familiar case of Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California imposes on clergy the same duty it imposes on therapists: the duty to warn foreseeable victims or otherwise to control the actions of their dangerous congregants. But my thesis is not so limited. Parents and custodians, among others, must also exercise a reasonable degree of control to prevent harm to third parties. Parents, for example, may be held liable to third parties when teenagers, who are not their children, become intoxicated at parties negligently held at their homes and then drive drunk, causing harm. In any case where the relationship between clergy and congregant resembles an established special relationship in tort law, this Note’s reasoning suggests that clergy will owe similar duties.
