No. 13-0967
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on December 9, 2014. The Court denied review of the petition on December 19, 2014. File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
October 5, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 7 other cases.
The Court has not issued any opinions in this case.
| Appellate District: | 1st Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Reverse & Render |
| COA Docket No.: | 01-12-00189-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Jane Nenninger Bland |
| Trial Court: | 55th District Court |
| County: | Harris |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Jeffrey A. Shadwick |
| Trial Docket: | 1041141 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-02-11 | Case Stored | ||
| 2015-02-06 | Notice sent to Court of Appeals | ||
| 2014-12-19 | Previous Order of the Court withdrawn | Withdrawn | |
| 2014-12-19 | Petition for Review disposed | Petition improvidently granted; Order denying petition withdrawn; Petition denied | |
| 2014-12-09 | Oral argument | ||
| 2014-12-08 | Letter Filed | ||
| 2014-12-08 | Exhibits in case/cause filed (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-12-04 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2014-12-02 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2014-12-02 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2014-12-02 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2014-10-31 | Submission reset | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2014-10-31 | Motion to re-set submission date disposed | Filing granted in part | |
| 2014-10-27 | Motion to re-set submission date filed. | ||
| 2014-10-03 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2014-10-03 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-10-03 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| 2014-08-27 | Address Change | ||
| 2014-08-07 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-07-29 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2014-07-29 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2014-07-16 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-07-16 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-06-20 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-05-20 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2014-05-20 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2014-05-15 | Notice from attorney regarding vacation dates | ||
| 2014-05-06 | Notice from attorney regarding vacation dates | ||
| 2014-04-29 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2014-04-28 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2014-04-25 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2014-03-17 | Reply to Response (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-03-03 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-03-03 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-01-31 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2013-12-31 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2013-12-19 | Response Waiver filed | ||
| 2013-12-18 | Response Waiver filed | ||
| 2013-12-05 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S., S. A. |
|
Petitioner | |||||
| Bryant, Beth |
|
Respondent | |||||
| Atascocita United Methodist Chruch |
|
Respondent |
The family of a child who was abused by a babysitter brought this claim against the babysitter's mother, who had made a misleading flyer about his trustworthiness as a babysitter, and the church that distributed that flyer. The allegation is that he was "troubled" with known psychiatric issues and that on the second babysitting session, he sexually abused two young boys. The jury found the defendants liable.
The court of appeals reversed and rendered, concluding that the evidence of causation presented here was legally insufficient based on Doe v. Boys Club of Dallas, also a sexual abuse case. In Boys Club, the Court held that the chain of causation had been essentially broken by other links between the abuser and the victim's family, such that the original lies were no longer a "substantial factor" causing the injury.
The petition asks the Court to hold that Boys Club was not meant to be a blanket protection for those whose misrepresentations might be linked to sexual abuse. The respondents argue that the sexual abuse was not the "natural and probable" result of the misrepresentation because the conduct was so extraordinary that it broke the chain of causation.