Opinion
No. CV 01-0075617-S
December 1, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT, ARCHDIOCESE OF HARTFORD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT — #131
The matter before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, Archdiocese of Hartford (herein, Archdiocese), on July 1, 2004 bearing the Court's motion #131.
This action arises out of various allegations made by the plaintiff, Doreen Ahern, resulting from her alleged relationship with her parish priest, the defendant, Matthew Kappalumakkel. The plaintiff claims that Kappalumakkel's conduct toward her was actionable and caused her to sustain injuries and harm. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that defendant, Matthew Kappalumakkel, a priest of the Archdiocese of Hartford, engaged in a sexual and inappropriate relationship with her despite his knowledge of her severe emotional problems. The plaintiff asserts that Kappalumakkel's conduct was violative of his fiduciary duty to her. The plaintiff also asserts that the defendant, Archdiocese of Hartford, has breached its duty to supervise defendant Kappalumakkel.
The plaintiff brought this action by way of a two-count complaint, dated December 29, 2000. Count One of the Complaint against the defendant, Kappalumakkel, alleges a breach of fiduciary duty. Count Two of the Complaint against the Defendant, Archdiocese of Hartford, alleges a breach of the duty to supervise. The plaintiff's sole claim against the defendant Archdiocese is that it failed to supervise defendant Kappalumakkel and that this failure to supervise caused her injuries.
By Memorandum of Decision dated March 5, 2004 and filed on March 9, 2004 (file #128) ( 36 Conn. L. Rptr. 756), the Court (Robinson, J.) granted the defendant Kappalumakkel's Motion for Summary Judgment by finding that ". . . the evidence fails to establish that defendant Kappalumakkel owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty."
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Archdiocese of Hartford claims that the Archdiocese cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged breach of a fiduciary duty by the co-defendant, Kappalumakkel, because the Court (Robinson, J.), by virtue of its said Memorandum of Decision dated March 5, 2004 (#128), found that there existed no such fiduciary duty as between the plaintiff and the co-defendant, Kappalumakkel. The Archdiocese further argues that it cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged misconduct of the co-defendant, Kappalumakkel, because such misconduct was not as a matter of law, within the scope of the co-defendant, Kappalumakkel's, employment. The Archdiocese further asserts that it cannot be held liable for negligent supervision because an employer cannot be held liable for negligent supervision under circumstances where the employee as a matter of law did not engage in tortious behavior.
In its analysis of the matter now before it, this Court is constrained by the earlier ruling of Judge Robinson on the co-defendant, Kappalumakkel's Motion for Summary Judgment. Because Judge Robinson has found that there existed no fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and Kappalumakkel, this Court has no choice but to grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant Archdiocese as well.
An essential element to the tort of negligent supervision is that the conduct of the employee whom the employer is accused of failing to supervise was itself tortious. On the basis of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff in her Complaint, the only tortious conduct alleged against the Defendant Kappalumakkel is that the he breached a fiduciary duty owed to the Plaintiff. By virtue of Judge Robinson's finding that there existed no such fiduciary duty, this Court is constrained to find that the Defendant Kappalumakkel engaged in no tortious or actionable wrong for which liability could be imputed to the Defendant Archdiocese.
The Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Two of the Plaintiff's Complaint is accordingly granted.
BY THE COURT
Carroll, J.