Duty to Protect Child Invitees: Minnesota Supreme Court Establishes Precedent in BJERKE v. JOHNSON

Introduction

The case of Aja Bjerke v. Suzette E. Johnson, Kenneth D. Bohlman, reported at 742 N.W.2d 660, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Minnesota on December 27, 2007, addresses critical questions surrounding the duty of care owed by homeowners to child invitees. Specifically, it examines whether a homeowner is legally obligated to protect a minor from sexual abuse perpetrated by another adult resident within the home and whether the minor can legally assume the risk of such abuse.

The respondent, Aja Bjerke, aged between 14 and 18 during her stays at Island Farm—a horse farm owned by appellant Suzette E. Johnson—entered into a sexual relationship with Johnson's adult live-in friend, Kenneth D. Bohlman. Bohlman's subsequent conviction for criminal sexual conduct led Bjerke to file a negligence action against Johnson, asserting a failure to protect her from the abuse. The legal discourse centers on the existence of a special relationship that imposes a duty of care and the applicability of the assumption of risk defense.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in an en banc decision authored by Justice Hanson, affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the lower court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Johnson. The central issue was determining whether Johnson had a legal duty to protect Bjerke from Bohlman's sexual abuse. The Supreme Court concluded that a special relationship indeed existed between Johnson and Bjerke, primarily due to Johnson's custodial role and the foreseeable risk of harm. Consequently, the defense of assumption of risk, particularly primary assumption of risk, was deemed inapplicable in barring Bjerke's negligence claims against Johnson. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several precedents, particularly focusing on the Restatement (Second) of Torts sections §314A and §324A, which delineate scenarios under which a duty to protect arises. Key cases include:

DELGADO v. LOHMAR, 289 N.W.2d 479 (Minn. 1979) – Established general principles for duty to protect.
ERICKSON v. CURTIS INV. CO., 447 N.W.2d 165 (Minn. 1989) – Explored foreseeability in duty to protect.
HARPER v. HERMAN, 499 N.W.2d 472 (Minn. 1993) – Discussed custody and special relationships.
H.B. ex rel. Clark v. Whittemore, 552 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. 1996) – Addressed special relationships in the context of a trailer park manager.
Walsh v. Pagra Air Taxi Inc., 282 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. 1979) – Focused on undertakings under §324A.

The court differentiated the present case from H.B. ex rel. Clark v. Whittemore, where the manager of a trailer park did not assume custody or control over the children, thereby negating a special relationship under §314A. Conversely, in Bjerke, the extended and custodial nature of Bjerke's stay at Island Farm highlighted a more profound duty.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court employed a structured approach to ascertain the existence of a duty of care:

Special Relationship: Johnson's long-term and custodial care of Bjerke, including providing room, board, and daily supervision, established a special relationship under Restatement §314A. This relationship was further scrutinized under Restatement §324A by considering whether Johnson undertook duties typically reserved for Bjerke's parents.
Foreseeability: The court examined whether Bjerke was in a position where harm was foreseeable. Given Johnson's observations of inappropriate behavior and the prolonged abuse by Bohlman, the risk of sexual abuse was deemed foreseeable, thus compelling Johnson to exercise reasonable care to protect Bjerke.
Assumption of Risk: The court addressed whether Bjerke could assume the risk of sexual abuse. It was determined that minors cannot meaningfully assume such risks due to inherent power imbalances and the inability to comprehend the long-term consequences of abuse.

The court emphasized that the existence of a duty is a question of law, subject to de novo review, and that summary judgment was inappropriate where material facts existed regarding the foreseeability of abuse.

Impact

The decision in BJERKE v. JOHNSON establishes significant precedents in Minnesota tort law, particularly concerning the duty of care owed by homeowners to child invitees. By affirming the existence of a special relationship and rejecting the assumption of risk as a defense in such contexts, the ruling broadens the scope of liability for homeowners. Future cases involving the protection of minors in residential settings will likely reference this judgment to determine the extent of a homeowner's duty to safeguard invitees from third-party misconduct.

Additionally, the concurring and dissenting opinions highlight ongoing debates within the judiciary regarding the thresholds for special relationships and the boundaries of duty under the Restatements. This underscores the necessity for clear statutory guidance to complement common law principles in safeguarding vulnerable individuals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Special Relationship

A special relationship in tort law refers to a legal connection between two parties that obligates one party to exercise a certain degree of care towards the other. This relationship can arise from:

Formal relationships like parent-child or employer-employee.
Custodial arrangements where one party has significant control over the other's welfare.
Assumed duties where one party agrees to undertake responsibilities for another’s protection.

In BJERKE v. JOHNSON, the court determined that Johnson and Bjerke had such a relationship due to the custodial care provided by Johnson, effectively reducing Bjerke’s ability to protect herself against internal threats within the household.

Assumption of Risk

Assumption of risk is a defense in tort law where the defendant argues that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the risks inherent to a particular activity. There are two types:

Primary Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff voluntarily engages in an activity with known inherent risks, negating the defendant’s liability.
Secondary Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff encounters risks created by the defendant’s negligence, which does not entirely negate liability but can reduce damages.

The court in this case held that primary assumption of risk was inapplicable because minors cannot fully comprehend or waive the severe risks of sexual abuse.

Foreseeability

Foreseeability refers to whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position could predict that their actions might lead to harm. In legal terms, it determines whether harm was a natural consequence of the defendant’s conduct.

The court found that given Johnson’s observations of inappropriate interactions between Bjerke and Bohlman, the risk of sexual abuse was foreseeable.

Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in BJERKE v. JOHNSON marks a pivotal point in delineating the responsibilities of homeowners towards child invitees. By affirming the existence of a special relationship and rejecting the claim of assumption of risk in the context of child sexual abuse, the court reinforces the duty of care owed to vulnerable individuals residing in one's home. This judgment not only sets a clear legal precedent but also underscores the judiciary's role in protecting minors from exploitation, thereby shaping future interpretations and applications of tort law concerning duty and liability.