John Harmon vs Dennis Peterson

2.3 MB·English

..
.
. .
-
... 1'0. 199Q-'.!30R9
---·- ·- ":Ii
ENTEREO D.IU-~'9
VEFIIFIEJ ____
JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III. ~ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
~
and JANE DOE I.
~
~
§
k
Plaintiffs. §
r
e
§
l
V. C
§ ...

§ t
c
ROI\IAN CATIIOLTC DIOCESE OF § i
r
GALVESTON/HOUSTON. by and through § t
s
JOSEPH FIORENZA. His Predecessors and § i
D
Successors. as l.lishop oft he ROMl\.."I CAT HOU C §

l
DIOCESE OF GALVESTON/HOUSTON. and § e
REVEREND DENNIS PETERSON. § ni
§ a
D
De li:ndants. §

s
i
r
h
C
PLATNTII-FS' FIH.ST Ai\lE'.\'DED l'F.TITION
f
o

e
c
i
TO THE HO:'IIORABLE COURT: f
f
O

John Doe I• . John Doc ll.'Jyohn Doe TIT and•Janc Doc I, Plaintiff.~. tile this First Amended Petition.
p
o
complaini11g of Defendants l~Ccvcrcnd Den11is Peterson. hcreinaller referred to as ··Peterson" and the ~oman

l
Catholic Diocese of Gaiavcstun/l luustun. hereinafter referred to as ""l)iucese··. hy and through Joseph
i
c
i
r-iorcnza. his predecefssors and successors. as l.lishop oft he Roman Catholic Diocese ofGalvcston/I louston.
f
o
n
and state the folUlowing:
\
l'LAINTffFS' FIRST Al\lENDED PETITION - Page I
.,
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Plaintiffs allirmativcly plead that they seek monetary relief aggregating more than $50,000. and
request the Court enter a Disco\'ery Control Plan and place this case in Track Ill.
k
II.
r
e
l
PARTIF.S C

t
c
I. Plaintiff John Doc I resides in llarris County, Texas. He is an adult male whose identity has
i
r
t
s
hecn made known to Defendants under separate cover. Plaintiff Doic I was a minor when the sexual ahuse
D

and all sexual exploitation. and other negligent acts alleged heerlein began.
i
n
2. Plaintiff John Doc II resides in Harris Countay, Texas. lie is an adult male whose identity has
D

been made known to Dcli:ndants under separate co\'er.s Plaintiff Doe II was a minor when the sexual ahuse
i
r
h
and all sexual exploitation, and other negligent acts alleged herein began.
C

f
3. Plaintiff John Doe Ill resides oin lfarris County, Texas. lie is an adult male whose identity

e
has b.:en made kno\\11 to Defendants undcer separate co\'cr. Plaintiff Doc Ill was a minor when the sexual
i
f
f
O
at>usc and all sexual exploitation. and other negligent acts alleged herein began.

y
p
4. Plaintiff Jane Doe I resides in Harris County. Texas. She is an adult lcmalc whose identity
o
C
has hcen made known to Defendants under scpamtc cover. PlaintilTJanc Doc I was a minor when the sexual

l
a
i
ahuse and all sexual excploitation. and other negligent acts alleged herein began.
i
f
f
o
5. Defendant Dennis Peterson is a resident of Harris County. Texas. during al least part of the
n
U
\\TOngli.JI conduct complained ol'. Dcli:ndant Peterson has appeared and answered a~ to John Doc I.
6. Defendant Roman Catholic Diocese ofGal\'eslon/Houston. hy and through Most Rc\'crcnd
Joseph Fiorenza, his predecessors and successors, is an uninc(>rporatcd religious association. Defendant
Diocese has appeared and answered as lo John Doe I.
PLAINTIFFS' FTRST A'.\IE:-.IDED PETITION - Page 2
...
Ill.
Vlt~1;r, A;\'U Jl.lRISDICJlQN
Vc nue is proper in Harris County pursuant to § 15 .001 et s,•q. oft he Tc xas Civil Practice & Remedies
Code b1.-causc all or part of the cause of action accrued in Harris County. Texas.
k
Jurisdiction is proper because tbc amount in contrO\·ersy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits
r
e
l
of this Court. C

t
c
IV.
i
r
t
s
FACTUAL DACKGROU~Di
D

JOII~ DOE II, 111, AND .JANelE DOE I
i
n
I. Plaintiffs John D1.1c 11. John Doc Ill and J:mae Doc I were miscd devout Catholics and with
D

their family were active in 11 Catholic Church in llarsris County. Texas. During their youth. Plaintirr.~
i
r
h
regularly cckbratcd w~-.:kly mass and received the holy sucramcnts 1hrough the Roman Catholic Church.
C

f
During much of their youth. Defendant l'et..--rsoon ndministcrcd these ~acmmcnts to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs und

e
their parents had been taught to believe icn and to rely on the teachings of the Catholic Church. Plaintilli!
i
f
f
O
developed great admiration, trust. reverence. n.-spcct and obedience to the Catholic Church and to its pri,;st~.

y
p
o
C
2. At all times material herein. Dclcmlant Peterson was under the retention. din.-.:t supi.T\ision.

l
a
i
employ, agency and cocntrol of Defendant Diocese.
i
f
f
3. Defeondant Peterson used his position and intlucnee as a priest and deacon to gain access to.
n
U
manipulate, and control John Doe II, fohn Doc Ill ll!ld Jane Doc I. Delendunt Peterson befriended the
Pklintiffa as well us their parents and --groomed·• the Plaintiffs lbr his sexual and drug related encow1tcrs
\\ith them.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED PETITION - Page 3
4. Delcndant Peterson on a consistent basis supplied Plaintiff.~ with hccr, hard alcohol, Valium,
and other illegal substances. Defendant Peterson highly encouraged the PlaintiIT.~ to consume these
substances, and Defendant Peterson consumed these substances in the presence of the minor PlaintiIT.~.
Defendant Peterson olien olli:rcd these suhstanccs shortly before a sexual encounter would occur.
k
5. Between approximately 1973 and 1989 Dcicndant Peterson sexually molested PlaintillsJohn
r
e
l
Doc II. John Doe III and Jw1e Doe I during his parish assignments at both SCt. Benedict and Sacred Heart.

t
c
This abuse occurred in a multitude oflocations including but not limited to the church property, the church
i
r
t
s
rectories. and on trips with Defendant Peterson. i
D

l
<,. l'ollowing many incidents ofabusc, PlaintiITs atteended conlcssion with Dcfcndanl Peterson.
i
n
who absolved Plaintiffs of any sin invoh·ing these sexual aacti\·ities.
D

7. Prior to this suit being filed, the Defendsant Diocese had been informed hy sources. including
i
r
h
but not limited to its employees, of Defendant PeCterson's sexual abuse. Additionally. PlaintiIT.~ informed

f
other priests in the diocese during the timeo that this substance and sexual abuse was occurring with

e
Defendant Peterson about the abuse and cwere ad\·iscd that the problems would he rcsol\'cd .
i
f
f
O
.J OIINDOEI

y
p
8. In approximately 1983. Plaintiff John Doc 1 and his fan1ily were active members of St.
o
C
lkrnadelle Catholic Church in I larris County. Texas. Plaintiff John Doc I. a minor, became involved in the

l
a
i
Scouting progran1 sponcsored by the Catholic Commillce on Scouting. During this time Plaintiff John Doe
i
f
f
o
I was repeatedly sexually molested hy Da\'id lloop. a lay leader of this Scouting pn•gmm. Subsequently,
n
U
Plaintiff John Doc l's hchavior changed and his family was encouraged to take him to Defendant Peterson
for counseling.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST A:\IENDED PETITION - l'agc 4
· 9. At all times material herein. Defendant Peterson was and continues to he a Roman Catholic
Priest ordained by Defendant Diocese. At all times material herein. Defendant Peterson remained under the
rct..-ntion, direct super\'ision, employ, agency and control of Defendant Diocese.
10. In approximately 1987, Defendant Peterson was assigned as pastor of St. Ann's Catholic
k
Church. In that year, Plaintiff John Doc I's parents took him to Defendant Peterson for counseling after the
r
e
l
sexual abuse by Da\'id I loop, the scout leader and a member of his home cChurch. St. Bernadette Parish.

t
c
During this period of time. Defendant Peterson used his position, influence and access as a priest to sexually
i
r
t
s
moh:st Plaintiff John Doe 1. This sexual contact frequently occurired aller Dc:ti:ndant Peterson gave the
D

minor Plaintiff John Doc l alcohol and/or Jrngs. el
i
n
11. In approximately 1988. Defendant l'L·IL-rsona was transforred to St. Francis Cabrini Catholic
D

Church in Ilouston. Texas, and while serving as pastors at St. Francis Cabrini Catholic Church in Ilouston,
i
r
h
Texas. Defendant Peterson continued to sexually molest John Doe I. Defendant Peterson also continued to
C

f
supply him with ak:ohol and/or drugs. from aopproximately 1987 through I 997.

e
12. PlaimiffJohn Doc I was racised in a devout Roman Catholic family and regularly celebrated
i
f
f
O
weekly mass and reeei\'ed the holy sacraments through the: Roman Catholic Church. During much of his

y
p
youth. Defend:mt Peterson administered these sacraments to Plaintiff John Doc I. Plaintiff John Doc I and
o
C
his family had been taught to believe in and to rely on the teachings of the Catholic Church. Plaintiff John

l
a
i
Doc I developed great cadmiration, trust. re\'erence, resp~ct and obedience to Defendant Peterson and the
i
f
f
o
Catholic Diocese. Following many incidents of abuse. Plaintiff John Due I attended c1,nli:ssion with
n
U
Defendant Peterson. who absolved Plaintiff John Doc I of any sin involving these sexual activities.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED PETITIO~ -!'age 5
V.
CAUSES 01'" ACTION AGAINST DEFENDA:"IT
IU)i\lA:'ti CATIIOLIC DIOCF,SF. OF GAI.VESTON/IIOl'.ST0:'11
I. At all times material herein from 1973 to present Defendant Peterson was engaged as a
deacon or employed as a parish priest hy Defendant Diocese and was under Defendant Diocese's direct
k
r
superdsion and control when he gave the minor Plaintiffs alcohol and drugs, aend sexually exploih:d and
l
C
ahuscd them. Both as a deacon and as a11 ordained priest. Defendant Peterson acted upon delegated authority
t
c
i
r
of the Roman Catholic Diocese and as an agent for the Bishop of the tDiocese. Defendant Peterson came
s
i
D
to know Plaintiffs and gained access to them because of his status as a Roman Catholic deacon or priest.

l
e
Defendant Peterson engaged in this wronglid conduct while inni the course and scope of his employment with
a
D
Defendant Diocese. Therefore. Defendant Diocese is liahle for the wrongli.11 c,,nduct of Defendant Peterson.

s
Plaintills therefore plead Rcspondeat Superior, agenricy, apparent agency and agency by cstoppel.
h
C
2. Defendant Diocese negligently selected. hired :md/orcontinucd the employment oflklendant

f
o

Peterson in a position oft rust. confidence aned authority in direct contact with minors when it knew or should
c
i
have kno,,11 of his dangerous sexual prfopensities.
f
O

3. Defendant Diocesye failed to warn Plaintiff.~ or their families of Defendant Peterson ·s
p
o
dangerous sexual propensities towards minors.
C

l
4. Defendanta Diocese failed to provide reasonable supervision of Defendant Peterson.
i
c
i
:5. Defenfdant Diocese failed to provide proper training of Defendant l'L'lcrson.
f
o
n
6. Defendant Diocese, as a religious organization. is granted special privileges and immunities
U
by society and is in a special fiduciary relationship with Plaintifis. Defendant Diocese owed the minor
Plaintiffs the highest duty of trust and confidence and is required to act in minor PlaintiITs' best interests.
Delendant Diocese kmmingly yiolatcd that relationship. Defendant Diocese knowingly hreachcd the minor
Plaintiffs' t111st when Defendant Diocese foiled to act with the highest degree of trust and confidence to
PLAINTIFFS" FIRST AMENDED PETITION - Page 6
pro!ccl the minor Plaintiffs from Dclcndant Peterson. ·111is knowing breach of fiduciary duty proximately
caused injury to PlitintilTs.
7. Defendant Diocese also knowingly participated in the breach of fiduciary duty committed by
Defendant Peterson as to PlaintilTs, and such knowing conduct proximately caused Plaintil1s' injuries.
k
8. Defendant Diocese was under a duty to disclose the extent of the problem of sexual abuse of
r
e
l
children by Roman Catholic clergy and the severe psychological problems thatC would result from such abuse

t
c
if not properly treated. Instead Defendant Diocese fraudulently concealed this information allm\ing
i
r
t
s
Dcfendant Peterson access to children for his own sexual gr:itilicatiion.
D

9. Defendant Diocese also committed fraud by melisrcprcsc:nlalion that proxinmtdy caused
i
n
l'laintills' damages. These misrepresentations included, witahout limitation, a promise offuture performance
D

with an intent not to perform as promised. The Defendasnt Diocese committed fraud when it represcnlcd that
i
r
h
Defendant Peterson was a sexually sale, celibate priest when it knew or should have known l•fhis pcdophilic
C

f
tendencies. o

e
I 0. Delcndant Diocesc al thec time and on the occasions in question acted with heedless and
i
f
f
O
reckless disregard or the safety of Plaintiffs. which disregard was the result or conscious indillcrcncc to the

y
p
rights. welfare and safcty of Plaintiffs in violation or the laws of the State ,,rTcxas.
o
C
11. PlaintilTs allege that Defendant Diocese and others unknown lo Plaintiffa. acting in concert.

l
a
i
engaged in a plan of acction to cover up the incidents or priests' sexual ahuse or minors and prevent
i
f
f
o
disclosure, prosecution and civil litigation including. hut not limited lo, denial of ahuse. spoliation of
n
U
evidence. reassignment of ahusive priests, religious duress and coercion, failure to seek out and assist
victims. hrcach of trust and conlidcnce.
12. Plainti!fa allege that Defendant Diocese has acted in concert ll• fraudulently conceal the extent
and nature of priests· sexual abuse and the han11li1l ellccts of suclt abuse.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST ,\:\-!ENDED PETITION - Page 7
· 13. Plaintiffs allege that the actions of Dcli::ndants have inflicted emotional distress upon
Plainti lls.
14. Plaintiffs assert that the Roman Catholic Diocese ofGalvcston/llouston is liable li.1r acts
and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Section 30213, under the legal doctrine of
k
negligent assumption of risk of intentional or criminal conduct.
r
e
l
An act or an omission may be negligent if the actor realizes or Cshould realize
that il involves an unreasonable risk ofhann to another lhmtugh the conduct
c
of the other or a third person which is intended lo cause iharm. even though
r
such conduct is criminal. t
s
i
D
Restatemcnl (Second) of Torts, Section 302B.

l
e
15. Defendant Diocese realized or should ha\'e nirealized that Defendant Peterson posed an
a
D
unreasonable risk ofh:mn to minors. including PlaintilTs.

s
i
I 6. Plaintifls assert that the Roman Cathrolic Diocese of Galveston/Houston is liable for acts
h
C
and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Scction 311. under the kgal doctrine of

f
o

negligent misrepresentation in\'olving risk eof physical harm.
c
i
(I) One who negligently gffives false information to another is subject lo liability for
O
physical harm caused hy action taken by the other in reasonable reliance upon such

information. wherey such hann results
p
(a) to the other. or
o
( h) to such third persons as the actor should expect to be put in peril by
C
the action taken.
l
a
i
(2) Such necgligence may consist of failure lo exercise reasonable care
i
(a) fin asee11aining the accuracy of the information. or
f
o
(b) in the manner in which it is communicated.
n
U
Restatement (Second) of Torts. Section 311.
17. Plaintiffs assert that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Galveston/1 louslon is liable for acts
and/or omissions pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Section 317. under the legal doctrine that
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST Al\·IENDED PETITION - Page 8
. imposes a duty u.p on employers to exercise reasonable care in contwlling employees to prc\'ent them from
.
intentionally harming others when:
a) the servant
(i)is upon the premises in possession of the master (lr upon which the servant is
k
privileged lo enter only as his servant, or
r
e
l
C
(ii)is using a chattel of the master and

t
c
b) the master
i
r
t
s
(i)knows or has reason to know that he has thie ahility to control his servant, and
D

l
(ii )knows or should know of the necessitye and opportunity for exercising such control.
i
n
Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 317 at 125 (1965). a
D

18. Plaintiffs also assert that the Defendantss should not he permillcd to raise a statutory bar to
i
r
h
their claims due to Plaintiffs hereby pleading equCitable estoppd. th.: discovery rule. and a legal disability.

f
all of which tolled the application of the staluloc of limitations. Pl::tintilfa. to a rcasonablc medical certainty.

e
were emotionally disablcd to assert their cclaims against the Dcfcndants until now.
i
f
f
O
19. Delcndant Diocesc's failure to ascertain and apprisc Plaintiffs and their families ofl)elendant

y
p
Pc:tcrson·s sexually predatory nature and the Defendant Diocese's rcprcsent:llion that Defcndant Pcterson
o
C
was not sexually dangcrous to minors placed Plaintiffs in dangcr and peril.

l
a
i
20. Defendacnts arc also liable to Plaintiffs for the infliction of emotional distress as a result of
i
f
f
o
their own acts.
n
U
21. PlaintilT.~ assert tlmt all entities and individuals who arc named as Defendunts are liuhle for
ucts and/or omissions pursuant to the Reslulcmcnt (Second) of Torts. Section 876, under the legal doctrine
of concert of action. as joint venturers, as agents of these entities. under which theories Plaintills seek
damages from all Defendants jointly and severally.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST A:VIENDED PETITION - Page 9
-~
VI.
C,\llSE OF ACTION ,\(;,\INST DEFE'.'IDANT DE~NIS l'ETEl~SON
1. Ocli.-ml:mt Pl.'terson is a Roman Catholic priest. I le had taken a variety of priestly vows.
including vows ofc hastity and celibacy. Notwithstanding these vows. while a deacon and priest, Defendant
k
Peterson repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiffs at his various parish assignments.
r
e
l
2. Deli:ndant Peterson knew of his own dangerous sexual propenCsities toward minor children.

t
c
3. Defendant Peterson has sexually molested or altempted to sexually molest Plaintiils on
i
r
t
s
numerous occasions from 1973 lo 1997. i
D

4. netcndant Peterson made sexual contact with Plaelintills and thereby assaulted them when he
i
n
knew or should have reasonably believed that such contact awould be provocative and/or o!li.-nsive to them.
D

5. l>cli:ndant Peterson's sexual abuse resulstcd in the inlliction ofcmotional distress on l'laintills
i
r
h
when he engaged in sexual conduct with them.
C

f
6. Delendant Peterson violated Soections 21.11. 22.011, 22.041 and 43.25 of the Texas Penal

e
Code when he engaged in the above desccribed sexual conduct with Plaintiffs. Such condition in these
i
f
f
O
criminal statutes constitute negligence prr se.

y
7. Ocli:ndant Peterspon provided alcoholic beverages to Plaintiffs when they were minors in
o
C
violation of Section I 06.06 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. Such violation oft his statute constitutes

l
a
negligence pas,•. ci
i
f
f
o
8. Defendant Peterson maintained himself in a position of trust. conlidence and authority as a
n
U
deacon and/or parish priest for Plainti !ls and negligently used this trust. conlidence and authority to sexually
abuse Plaintiffs.
9. Deli:ndant Peterson knowingly hrcaclu:d this fiduciary rdationshipwhcn he sexually violated
Plaintilfa which proximately caused dmn:1ges to Plaintiffs.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED PETITION - Page 10