BishopAccountability.org
	Ruling Rejects Abuse Defense Civil Suits against Priests Still Difficult, Lawyers Say By Bill Dries Commercial Appeal [Nashville TN] January 23, 2005 A Tennessee Supreme Court ruling last week has eliminated one of several defenses the Catholic Diocese of Memphis might use in two child sexual abuse lawsuits filed against two priests and the church last summer. But attorneys for the alleged abuse victims say the civil lawsuits still will be a hard fight. The high court's ruling on Tuesday in an abuse lawsuit involving former Nashville priest Edward McKeown and the Diocese of Nashville focused on claims of "emotional distress." McKeown already has been convicted on a criminal charge of sexually abusing one of the two boys who later filed the civil suit against McKeown and the church. Nashville church officials argued they weren't liable on the distress charge because they didn't know the alleged victims and because the abuse didn't take place in the presence of church officials. In a unanimous ruling setting a new legal standard, the Supreme Court rejected that defense and ordered the case back on the court calendar after it had been dismissed by two lower courts. The court also ordered the Catholic Diocese of Nashville to provide more details about who in the church hierarchy knew of the sexual abuse and when they knew it. Memphis lawyer Gary K. Smith called the state Supreme Court ruling "common sense." He represents an anonymous victim suing the Memphis Diocese and former priest Juan Carlos Duran. "The prior activity which is made known to the church is what creates the duty on their part to stop that person," Smith said. "(The church) is saying even if we didn't stop them, you can't hold us responsible because we didn't know who the child was that would be next." Attorney B. J. Wade, who represents twin brothers Blain and Blair Chambers, who are suing Father Richard Mickey and the Memphis diocese for alleged sexual abuse, said the Supreme Court ruling is "potentially very favorable" for victims of sexual abuse by priests. "Obviously, it's encouraging news to the plaintiffs," Wade said of his own case. Father John Geaney, communications advisor for the Memphis diocese, said local church officials are aware of the ruling. "How it will affect our diocese is something we don't know at the present minute," he said. University of Memphis assistant law professor Stephen Mulroy said the ruling is important, but its impact on the two Memphis lawsuits may be minimal. "It takes away one defense to that particular claim that might have applied. There are so many legal defenses and legal hurdles," Mulroy said. "The fact that one narrow defense has been taken away from the church -- it'd be very easy to read too much into that." While emotional distress might be a subjective determination outside a courtroom, Mulroy said it has a very specific definition and criteria in a lawsuit. "It is an extremely tough standard. It is an outrageous departure from standards of normal care or fair dealing that would cause severe emotional harm," he said.