1. Doe 8 is a pseudonym for a citizen and resident of the State of Tennessee bom in

Transcription

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF OLMSTED Doe 8, DISTRICT COURT THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT PERSONAL INJURY Court File No. Plaintiff vs. The National Boy Scouts of America Foundation dlblathe Boy Scouts of America, Gamehaven Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America; St. Pius X Catholic Church of Rochester, Minnesota; and Richard Hokanson, COMPI,AINT Defendants Plaintiff, for his cause of action against Defendants, alleges that: PARTIES 1. Doe 8 is a pseudonym for a citizen and resident of the State of Tennessee bom in July, At all times relevant to the complaint he resided in Rochester, Minnesota. The identity of Plaintiff Doe 8 has been disclosed to Defendants under separate cover letter. A pseudonym has been used because he is a victim ofchildhood sexual abuse. 2. The National Boy Scouts of America Foundation dlbla The Boy Scouts of America ("BSA") was and is a congressionally chartered corporation, authorized to do business in Minnesota, with its principal place of business, and its agent for service, located at 2218 County Highway 10, Mounds View, MN It does business in Olmsted County, and the events which give rise to this complaint occurred in Olmsted County. 3. Gamehaven Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America ("Gamehaven") is a non-profit cotporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and with its principal place of

2 business located atii24 li YrStreet SE, Rochester, MN It does business in Olmsted County. Gamehaven Council, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary and arm of Defendant BSA. 4. St. Pius X Catholic Church of Rochester, Minnesota ("St. Pius) is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its principal place of business at I3l512th Avenue NW, Rochester MN It does business in Olmsted County. 5. Richard Hokanson is an adult resident of the State of Minnesota who, at all times material, was a scoutmaster of Boy Scout Troop 2I0, in Rochester, Minnesota and in that capacity, the agent and servant of Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius. Hokanson curently resides in Faribault, Minnesota. He committed the tortious acts alleged in this Complaint in Olmsted County. FACTS 6. Defendant Hokanson arranged in various ways to have contact with children to further his sexual interest in children. In the Rochester area he was (a) the scoutmaster of Boy Scout Troop 210, which included Doe 8, (b) he participated in the Big Brother program at the YMCA, and (c) he participated in a youth football program. 7. Upon information and belief, Hokanson was involved in Scouting for 22 years. 8. Doe 8 came to know and trust Defendant Hokanson when Defendant Hokanson was the Plaintiff s scoutmaster. 9. From the time period of 1973 to 1980, Doe 8 participated in scouting activities, including monthly camping trips and activities, in and outside the State of Minnesota. Scout troop. 10. Defendant Hokanson participated on trips as the scoutmaster of Doe 8's Boy 2

3 1 1. On multiple occasions, Defendant Hokanson used the trips with Doe 8 to engage in harmful sexual contact with and inflict abuse upon Doe On multiple occasions, Defendant Hokanson used the process of achieving merit badges, a Boy Scout protocol, to coerce the scouts, including Plaintiff, into situations of sexual abuse. 13. Hokanson sexually abused Doe 8 starting inl9l3 or 1974, whenhe was eleven years old, to 1979 or 1980, when he was seventeen years old. Doe 8 turned 18 during Upon information and belief, from at least 1969 to 1982, Hokanson sexually abused more than 21 young scouts in Troop Upon information and belief Defendants knew or should have known that Hokanson was preying on young boys from the troop, including Doe 8, but took no steps to report Hokanson to law enforcement. 16. Upon information and belief during the time period in which his abuse took place, Doe 8 reported information to multiple adults affiliated with defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius, inciuding a scout committee of adult volunteer leaders, from which Defendants knew or should have known that Hokanson was sexually abusing him. 17. Upon information and belief, when he was approximately 13 years old, Doe 8 began reporting information from which Defendants knew or should have known that Hokanson was sexually abusing him. No one came to his assistance. 18. Hokanson continued to abuse Doe 8 because no adult, including none of the agents of the Defendants other than Hokanson, assisted him in stopping or repofting Hokanson. J

4 19. Investigation by law enforcement disclosed that in January, 1980, the mother of a scout troop member "talked to Assistant Scout Leader" that hve troop members had reported to her that "Hokanson was gay and he plays with the boys while showing them First Aid." The Assistant Scout Leader refused to repoft Hokanson, took no steps to talk with the troop members who reported that information, took no steps to fuither investigate Hokanson, and suggested the mother discuss her concerns directly with the offender Hokanson. 20. When that mother discussed her concems with Hokanson in 1980, he denied the allegations. When Hokanson was interviewed by law enforcement in October,1982, he admitted sexual contact with three troop members and then later disclosed 2i troop members with whom he'd had sexual contact. Had the Assistant Scout Leader properly investigated the information he was given in 1980, or properly reported Hokanson, as he ought to have done, Hokanson would have been confronted more than two years earlier. 21. The Assistant Scout Leader's inactivity in 1980, after being told of sexual abuse by Hokanson, reflected the practice of the BSA and Gamehaven to ignore information and downplay reports of sexual misconduct by scout leaders, placing organizational reputation before child protection. 22. In October 1982,Iaw enforcement began investigating allegations of sexual abuse against Hokanson. 23. In an interview with police, Fr. Taylor of St. Pius, having been in his position at St. Pius less than a month, acknowledged that he had heard of "homosexual activities" of Hokanson. Neither Fr. Taylor, nor anyone else at St. Pius had made any report of the allegations against Hokanson to law enforcement. 4

5 24. Fr. Taylor consented to a search of space at St. Pius used by Troop 210, and law enforcement tecovered evidence consistent with the sexual abuse scouts had reported by Hokanson. 25. To law enforcement, Hokanson disclosed he had sexual contact wilh2i children participating in scouting. 26. Hokanson was criminally charged for the abuse of just three scouts, and, in December 1982, Hokanson pled guilty to a single felony count of sexual abuse. 27. Hokanson was sentenced to 42 months in state prison, stayed on condition that Hokanson undergo treatment in the intensive sexual abuse program at St. Peter. 28. In June 1983, the BSA placed Hokanson in the confidential Ineligible Volunteer Files or "Perversion Files." 29. Nearly all of the sexual abuse of the Doe I could have been prevented but for the negligence of Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius. 30. On multiple occasions, Defendant Hokanson was permiued to utilize the designated scout room at St. Pius without supervision or oversight by any other adult. Hokanson used his isolation with scouts to sexually abuse scouts, including Doe 8. Permitting that isolation was negligence by the Defendants, including Hokanson. 31. Upon information and belief, minimal routine inspection and proper oversight of the scout room at St. Pius would have uncovered evidence of sexual abuse, and failure to do so was negligence by Defendants other than Hokanson. 32. Defendant St. Pius was the charter organization or sponsor of Troop 210. Defendant St. Pius, as the sponsor, worked in parlnership with Gamehaven and BSA to select 5

6 and supervise scout leaders, implement BSA and Gamehaven policy, and facilitate the activities of the troop. 33. By establishing, staffing, andlor operating a Boy Scout troop, encouraging the membership and instruction of the Plaintiff in this Boy Scout troop, accepting the membership of the Plaintiff in this Boy Scout troop, providing premises for troop meetings, holding the Boy Scout troop out to be a safe environment for learning and engaging in youth activities, Defendants (other than Hokanson) entered into an express and/or implied duty to provide a reasonably safe environment for children, including the Plaintiff. 34. Defendants (other than Hokanson) fuither assumed this duty by holding Hokanson out to the public, including Plaintiff, as a competent and trustworthy supervisor, scout leader, servant, teacher, and counselor. 35. Defendants sought and gained the trust and confidence of Plaintiffs parents and gained his parents' consent for Plaintiff to participate in trips based upon the trust that was gained through activities sponsored by Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius. Trust for each was also gained through the parents' directive to the minor Plaintiff, a directive promoted and encouraged by each Defendant other than Hokanson, that Plaintiff respected those in authority with the BSA, Gamehaven and St. Pius, including the authority of Defendant Hokanson. 36. For the purpose of fuithering his duties as agent of Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius, Hokanson also sought and gained Plaintiffls trust, friendship, admiration and obedience. As a result, the minor Plaintiff was conditioned to comply with Hokanson's direction and to look to him as an authority figure. 6

7 37. Hokanson's primary contact with Plaintiff came through Hokanson's leadership and supervisory position at St. Pius and Gamehaven; Gamehaven being owned, controlled and operated by BSA. At all times relevant, Hokanson was an agent and servant of each of Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius, and under the control, dominion and supervision of each of those Defendants. The conduct of each Defendant (other than Hokanson) placed Hokanson in a position of actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of the respective Defendant. 38. Using the power, authority and trust of his positions within BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius, and availing himself of Defendants' representations to parents that the Boy Scouts were moral and safe places for boys, Hokanson enticed, induced, directed and coerced Plaintiff into sexual contact with Hokanson, while Plaintiff was a minor. 39. The Defendants (other than Hokanson) negligently permitted Hokanson to isolate himself.with Plaintiff while on the trips, causing Plaintiff to be injured by the sexual abuse. 40. 'When each Defendant (other than Hokanson) failed to respond after its agent, servant, or employee was told information from which Defendants knew or should have known that Hokanson was sexually abusing Doe 8, the Plaintiff was left without a means to protect himself from Hokanson. 47. As the Defendants knew, or should have known, no child could protect himself fi'om Hokanson. 42. The BSA and Gamehaven had known for decades that sexual predators of boys had infiltrated scouting, desiring positions around children, due in part to their sexual interest in children. The Defendants other than Hokanson knew or should have known the danger that 7

8 pedophiles presented to Boy Scouts before Plaintiff was abused, and either knew, or should have known, the danger that Defendant Hokanson presented before Plaintiff was abused. Instead, the Defendants (other than Hokanson) ignored that danger and permitted Hokanson and other pedophiles in scouting to prey upon young boys, including Plaintiff and did so even after the Plaintiff reported information from which Defendants knew or should have known Hokanson was sexually abusing the Plaintiff. 43. BSA's own internal "Ineligible Volunteer Files" (also referred to as "Perversion Files"), collected and maintained in secrecy for at least seventy years, reveal that pedophiles are drawn to volunteer for scouting and that the BSA is a sanctuary for child molesters. 44. BSA's confidential records demonstrate that (a) it is aware that pedophiles are attracted to Scouting, (b) that the distinctive characteristics of Scouting render scouts particularly susceptible to pedophiles who are given authority by BSA, and (c) that the actual and apparent authority of persons who serve in Scoutmaster roles are used by pedophiles to sexually abuse boys who engage in scouting. because: 45. Defendants each knew or should have known that scouting attracts pedophiles a) Scouting provides a pedophile with access to boys who are alone and away from their parents in secluded settings like camp-outs and overnight hikes. It provides opporlunities for a pedophile to seduce a boy by getting him in situations where the boy has to change clothing or spend the night with him; o ô

9 b) A pedophile given scout authority can, depending on the pedophile's age preference, volunteer for, and be sure to have access to, boys of only a certain age or age range; c) Defendants condition boys to the concept of strict obedience to the scout authority and a bonding mechanism that pedophiles crave and are known to exploit; d) Defendants promote the idea of secret ceremonies, rituals and loyalty oaths, all of which help facilitate a pedophile's efforts to keep the victims silent and compliant; e) Defendants (other than Hokanson) provided insufficient oversight and supervision to Hokanson, enabling him to isolate himself with scouts; Ð At the time of the Plaintiffs abuse, Defendants conducted no criminal background checks on its volunteers and any background checks they did were insufficient. 46. BSA was aware for decades prior to 1973 that it had ejected hundreds of pedophiles from its ranks of leadership in local Scout Troops but failed to inform its Scouts and their parents of that fact. BSA concealed that information, which should have been disclosed to parents as one of the known dangers from participating in scouting. 47. Defendants BSA and Gamehaven knew or should have known that Boy Scout troop leaders such as Hokanson would sexually abuse the children in the Boy Scout troop. 48. BSA knew, or should have known, that its "Ineligible Volunteer" system of keeping track of pedophiles infiltrating its ranks and attempting to eliminate them did not function to protect children who participated in scouting from sexual abuse, was flawed, and in many cases ineffective. Among other things, the "Ineligible Volunteer" system operated only 9

10 after abuse had already occuned. Despite that knowledge, BSA did nothing to educate its Scouts and their parents of that ineffectiveness, or of the enormity of its pedophile problem, or of the risk to scouts, or to take action to correct its ineffective screening andlor education system. 49. Richard Hokanson's conduct as alleged herein was taken while under the direct supervision, employ, and control of Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius. 50. Hokanson conducted his torlious conduct during his tenure with the BSA and Gamehaven, on the premises of Defendant St. Pius, while actually or apparently providing supervision and mentoring to Plaintiff. Hokanson had, from each of the other Defendants, the actual or apparent authority to do so. 51. Before Hokanson's sexual contact with the Plaintiff each of Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius knew, or should have known, that Hokanson had a sexual interest in children, and knew, or should have known, that Hokanson was a danger to children. 52. The BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius each negligently or recklessly believed that Hokanson was fit to work with children; that Hokanson would not sexually molest children; andlor that Hokanson would not injure children. 53. Hokanson performed services for Defendants as a scoutmaster. 54. In his role as scoutmaster, both BSA and Gamehaven had the right to control his conduct, and the right to control his supervision. St. Pius had the right to control his conduct, and to supervise him, in his authorized access to facilities at St. Pius, and its responsibility for the supervision of Troop

11 55. When Hokanson used the premises of St. Pius as sponsor for BSA and Gamehaven, St. Pius had the right to control Hokanson's access and manner of using St. Pius' facilities. 56. Defendants each had a special relationship with Plaintiff. 51. By holding out Hokanson as a qualified Scoutmaster employed by or working with Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius, and by undertaking the instruction and guidance of the minor Plaintiff, Defendants each entered into a special relationship with the Plaintiff. 58. By organtzing camping trips and scout camps, and soliciting Plaintiffs involvement, Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius each voluntarily took custody of the minor Plaintiff under circumstances in which the Plaintiff was deprived of the normal opportunity for self-protection that was otherwise afforded by his parents. 59. By holding Hokanson out as safe to work with children, and by undertaking the custody, supervision of, and/or care of the minor Plaintiff, Defendants entered into a fiduciary relationship with the minor Plaintiff. As a result of the Plaintiff being a minor, and by Defendants undertaking the care a d guidance of the then vulnerable minor Plaintiff, Defendants held a position of empowerment over Plaintiff. 60. Further, Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius, by (a) holding themselves out as a youth leadership program, and (b) holding themselves out as able to provide a safe environment for children, each solicited and/or accepted this position of empowerment that prevented the then minor Plaintiff from effectively protecting himself, and Defendants thus entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. 11

12 61. By accepting custody of the minor Plaintiff, Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius accepted custody of the Plaintiff in loco parentis, as if each was a parent, and owed the Plaintiff a duty of full disclosure of any information it had regarding Hokanson's previous sexual misconduct and a duty to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harms, such as sexual abuse by their agents or servants. 62. Each Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because, compared to the Plaintiff each had superior knowledge about the risk that Hokanson posed to the Plaintiff, the risk of abuse in general in its programs, and the risk that its facilities posed to minor children. 63. Each of Defendant BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because each solicited youth and parents for participation in its programs; encouraged youth and parents to have the youth participate in its programs; undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff; promoted its facilities and programs as being safe for children; held its agents (including Hokanson) out as safe to work with children; encouraged parents and children to spend time with its agents; and./or encouraged its agents, including Hokanson, to spend time with, interact with, and recruit children. 64. Each of Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius had a duty to Plaiirtiff to protect him from harm because each Defendant's.actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff. 65. Each of Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius breached its duties to the Plaintiff in ways that include, but are not limited to: a. failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sex abuse; T2

13 Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius each negligently retained Defendant Hokanson, which permitted Hokanson to sexually abuse the minor Plaintiff. 76. As a direct result of the Defendants' conduct described herein, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of selfesteem, humiliation, physical, personal and psychological injuries. Plaintiff was prevented, and will continue to be prevented, from performing his normal daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has incured, and will continue to incur, expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling; and, on information and belief, and will incur loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. COIINT I: CHILD SEXUAL ABTISE _ DEFENDANT HOKANSON 77. Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges: 78. In approximately 1973 through 1979 or 1980, Hokanson engaged in repeated sexual assaults and sexual abuse upon the person of the minor Plaintiff. Hokanson. 79. Those sexual assaults were intentional, and unpermitted by the Plaintiff. 80. Due to his age, the Plaintiff was incapable of consenting to the sexual contact by 81. As a direct result of Defendant Hokanson's wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered the injuries described herein. 16

14 COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE _ DEFENDANTS BSA. GA VEN. AND ST. PII]S 82. Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges: Plaintiff. 83. Defendants each owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care and a duty to protect 84. Defendants' respective breaches of duty were each the proximate cause of Plaintiff s injuries. 85. As a direct result of the negligent conduct by each Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered the injuries and damages described herein. COI]NT ITI: NEGT,I GENT SUPERVISION _ DEF'ENDANTS BSA; GAMEHAVEN. AND ST. PIUS 86. Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count and further alleges: 87. At all times material, Hokanson was a servant of Defendants and was under Defendants' direct supervision, employ, and control when he committed the wrongful acts alleged herein. Defendant Hokanson engaged in the wrongful conduct while acting in the course and scope of his duties a scoutmaster of Troop 210 with Defendants and/or accomplished the sexual abuse by virtue of his authority as a servant of Defendants, on the premises of St. Pius. Defendants BSA, Gamehaven, and St. Pius each failed to exercise ordinary care in supervising Hokanson in his role as scoutmaster and failed to prevent the foreseeable misconduct of Hokanson from causing harm to others, including the Plaintiff. T7

15 88. As a direct result of Defendants' negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered he injuries and damages described herein. COIINT IV: NEGLIGENT RE FEND VEN AND on- 89. Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this compiajnt as if fully set forth under this count. 90. Defendants, by and through their agents, servants, and employees, became aware, or should have become aware, of problems indicatingthat Hokanson was an unfit agent with dangerous and exploitive propensities, yet Defendants failed to take any further action to remedy the problem and failed to investigate or remove Hokanson from working with children. 91. As a direct result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages described herein. COTINT V: NEGI,TGENT HIRING _ DEF'ENDANTS BSA AND GAMEHAVEN 92. Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth under this count. 93. Each Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring its agents, servants, and employees. 94. Defendants further assumed this duty by holding Hokanson out to the public, including the Plaintiff, as a competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor. 95. Defendants, by and through its agents, servants, and employees, knew or should have known of Hokanson's known dangerous and exploitive propensities, and which could have 18

16 been discovered by reasonable investigation by Defendants of Hokanson prior to hiring him as a Scoutmaster and servant of Defendants. 96. Defendants were aware for decades prior to 7973 that it had ejected thousands of pedophiles from its ranks of leadership in local Boy Scout Troops. 97. Defendants BSA and Gamehaven knew or should have known that Boy Scout troop leaders would sexually abuse the children in the Boy Scout troop. 98. Despite this knowledge, Defendants BSA and Gamehaven each breached its duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in hiring its agents, servants, and employees, including Hokanson. 99. As a direct result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered the injtuies and damages described herein. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 100. Plaintiffdemands a jury trial for each issue so triable. I9

17 DAMAGES WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants individually, jointly, and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000 plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys fees, interest, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. qñ Dated: / It7 JEFF ANDERSON & OCIATES, P.A. R. Anderson, #2057 Gregg Meyers, #7259X Jared D. Shepherd, # Attomeys for Plaintiff 366 Jackson Street, Suite 100 St. Paul, Minnesota (651) ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that sanctions, including costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted. 20