Bus 345 Legal Case Report
Bus 345
January 27, 2014
Facts - A brief summary of the facts
- Robert was a pedophile that did his time and was released into the public. He met a girl names Helen, they started a relationship, which became romantic. He brought his new girl and her 8-year-old son, Eric to his family’s homes to introduce them. As they’re relationship grew Robert started to sexually molested Eric during some of these visits at the family homes. No family member told Helen about Robert’s criminal history of felony child molestation. Robert was convicted of molesting Eric and sent back to prison. Helen filed suit against Robert’s family claiming they had a duty to warn her about Robert’s criminal past and the potential danger to her child, and failing that
duty they were liable for damages that were caused by Robert to Eric. In the end the court dismissed the case.
Issue - What is the legal question being examined by the court?
- The legal question being examined by the courts is that, did the family have to disclose that Robert was a pedophile to his new girlfriend because of his past?
Rule - What rule (either from the statute or a previous case) did the court apply?
- The court applied the “no duty to aid” rule.
Analysis (Rationale) - How did the court apply the rule to the facts and why?
- The court applied the “no duty to aid” rule by stating that a special relationship is required to create a duty to warn, give aid, or otherwise help another. In the end the court decided that there is no special relationship between the family and the girlfriend.
Conclusion - What did the court conclude? In who’s favor did the court rule?
- The court concluded a dismissal on the case on a nonsuit motion. The decision was in favor of the Roberts family.
Opinion - Thoughts on the case.
-In my opinion, the family has the right to privacy but knowing that he was a pedophile they should have warned her because she had a relationship with them even if it was just as acquaintances and this decision effected her son’s safety.
January 27, 2014
Facts - A brief summary of the facts
- Robert was a pedophile that did his time and was released into the public. He met a girl names Helen, they started a relationship, which became romantic. He brought his new girl and her 8-year-old son, Eric to his family’s homes to introduce them. As they’re relationship grew Robert started to sexually molested Eric during some of these visits at the family homes. No family member told Helen about Robert’s criminal history of felony child molestation. Robert was convicted of molesting Eric and sent back to prison. Helen filed suit against Robert’s family claiming they had a duty to warn her about Robert’s criminal past and the potential danger to her child, and failing that
duty they were liable for damages that were caused by Robert to Eric. In the end the court dismissed the case.
Issue - What is the legal question being examined by the court?
- The legal question being examined by the courts is that, did the family have to disclose that Robert was a pedophile to his new girlfriend because of his past?
Rule - What rule (either from the statute or a previous case) did the court apply?
- The court applied the “no duty to aid” rule.
Analysis (Rationale) - How did the court apply the rule to the facts and why?
- The court applied the “no duty to aid” rule by stating that a special relationship is required to create a duty to warn, give aid, or otherwise help another. In the end the court decided that there is no special relationship between the family and the girlfriend.
Conclusion - What did the court conclude? In who’s favor did the court rule?
- The court concluded a dismissal on the case on a nonsuit motion. The decision was in favor of the Roberts family.
Opinion - Thoughts on the case.
-In my opinion, the family has the right to privacy but knowing that he was a pedophile they should have warned her because she had a relationship with them even if it was just as acquaintances and this decision effected her son’s safety.