Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
65 N.Y.2d 189, 491 N.Y.S.2d 90, 480 N.E.2d 679 (1985)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Richard and Margaret Schultz (plaintiffs), along with their minor sons, Richard and Christopher, were domiciliaries of New Jersey. Both sons were sexually molested by Edmond Coakeley, a Franciscan Brother who taught the boys at their Catholic school and served as their Boy Scout troop leader. The molestation occurred during scouting trips to the Pine Creek Reservation in New York and continued, as to Christopher, in New Jersey. Christopher committed suicide, allegedly because of the sexual abuse. Mr. and Mrs. Schultz filed suit in a New York court against Coakeley, the Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (BSA), the Franciscan Brothers of the Poor, Inc. (Franciscan Brothers), the Pine Creek Reservation, and another individual (collectively, defendants) for personal injury and for Christopher’s wrongful death. At the time of the molestation, the domicile of the BSA was New Jersey; the domicile of the Franciscan Brothers was Ohio. By the time of the suit, the BSA had moved its domicile to Texas. If New Jersey law were applicable, the BSA and Franciscan Brothers could evade liability pursuant to charitable immunity. New York law, on the other hand, did not provide tort immunity to charities. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court applied New Jersey law. Plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simons, J.)
Dissent (Jasen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
