Sexual assault victim's negligence case against Pierce City First Baptist Church sent to Supreme Court

Noting the First Amendment implications of a lawsuit filed by a sexual assault victim against First Baptist Church of Pierce City, the Missouri Southern District Court of Appeals sent the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court.

In the case of Jane Doe vs First Baptist Church of Pierce City, the girl, a minor, claims she was sexually assaulted in the church van by another participant in the church's youth ministries program and claims the church was negligent and did not follow standards that could have prevented the abuse.

A Lawrence County Circuit Court judge initially ruled in favor of the church noting that a ruling would require the court to involve itself in "religious doctrine and administration," and would violate the First Amendment.

The case was detailed in the southern district's opinion:

On two occasions in March of 2022, another participant in FBC’s youth ministries program inappropriately touched Plaintiff in the church van during its operation by the youth pastor. 

Plaintiff, thereafter, filed a negligence claim against FBC, premising her claim on the failure by FBC to prevent the incidents by following standards for the prevention of child sexual abuse. FBC denied liability and moved for summary judgment. 

In its motion, FBC cited Gibson for the proposition that “the First Amendment bars a negligence claim against a church if the negligence claim would require the court to decide how a reasonably prudent church should have acted.” 

FBC argued that Plaintiff’s negligence claim “would require [the circuit court] to decide how [FBC], as an institution, and through its Youth Pastor, should have conducted its student ministries.” FBC further argued that “[g]iven these facts, Plaintiff cannot prove, without [the circuit court] violating the First Amendment, the element of breach as that would require [the circuit court] to find how [FBC] should have conducted its youth ministries.” 

The circuit court agreed with FBC and granted summary judgment in its favor. 

In pertinent part, the circuit court, relying on Gibson, stated, “[w]hether negligence exists in a particular situation depends on whether or not a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated danger and provided against it.” The circuit court further stated, “[i]n order to determine how a ‘reasonably prudent Diocese’[2 ] would act, a court would have to excessively entangle itself in religious doctrine policy and administration.”