The family of a girl who was sexually assaulted on a Pierce City First Baptist Church bus has filed notice that it will appeal a judge's decision to dismiss the case.
In his November 30 decision, Judge David Allen Cole granted summary judgment in favor of the church saying he could not make a decision in the case because it would require him to "interfere with or interpret church doctrine, policy, polity, practice or administration."
To decide whether the church was negligent, Cole wrote, normally you would decide "Whether negligence exists in a particular situation depends on whether or not a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated danger and provided against it."
That same standard doesn't apply to a church, Cole wrote, having noted earlier in his opinion that due to the First Amendment's prohibition against prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
"In order to determine how a “reasonably prudent Diocese” would act, a court would have to excessively entangle itself in religious doctrine policy and administration."
In the lawsuit, which was filed September 8, 2022, the petition claimed the girl was physically and sexually assaulted by another passenger on a bus that was being used for the church's student ministries program.
3 comments:
Looks like citizens now know why David Cole has been appointed to positions and not elected.
IANAL- I Am Not A Lawyer
In defense of the judge:
"Cole wrote, normally you would decide"
Sometimes words don't mean what you think they do.
Judges cite previous judicial decisions by other courts in their decisions.
What this means is that when a judge is 'writing' their decision in a case the judge will frequently use the same words used by previous judges and higher court decisions.
For example, do an internet search on what Judge Cole 'wrote' in his decision to see if those exact words have been used before:
"In order to determine how a “reasonably prudent Diocese” would act, a court would have to excessively entangle itself in religious doctrine policy and administration"
You will find those exact words have been used by other judges in their decisions.
That concept also appears in the 1997 Missouri Supreme Court decision in Gibson v Brewer. That too is not an accident.
One summary of that Gibson v Brewer case is:
"holding that First Amendment barred child victim of sexual abuse by priest from bringing negligent hiring and supervision claims, but that First Amendment would not be violated by adjudication of claim of intentional failure to supervise priest"
A person might find Judge Cole's decision alarming, but his decision it is based on previous higher court decisions in where plaintiffs and defendants were in similar circumstances.
Ah, the raison d’etre of Missouri Polity. Let the Powerful f-$k the powerless and sweep it under the rug
Post a Comment