## Facts

- Plaintiffs were former youth taekwondo athletes who alleged their coach, Marc Gitelman, sexually abused them over several years while they were minors.
- Plaintiffs traveled with Gitelman to taekwondo events in California and elsewhere, including competitions sponsored by USA Taekwondo (USAT), the national governing body for the sport.
- To coach at USAT-sponsored competitions, Gitelman was required to register with USAT, and athletes could compete only with registered coaches.
- Plaintiffs alleged USAT had power to set and enforce protective policies and to discipline coaches, including barring them from competition; USAT later banned Gitelman, and he was criminally convicted.
- Plaintiffs sued USAT and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) for negligence-based claims, asserting the organizations had a duty to protect youth athletes from foreseeable sexual abuse by coaches.
- USOC was alleged to oversee and certify national governing bodies (including USAT) as part of its role in coordinating Olympic amateur sports.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs adequately alleged USAT owed them an affirmative duty of care, based on a special relationship and policy considerations, to implement and enforce reasonable measures to protect youth athletes from foreseeable sexual abuse by coaches.
2. Whether plaintiffs adequately alleged USOC owed a similar duty based on any special relationship with plaintiffs or Gitelman, or based on USOC’s oversight of USAT.
3. Whether the trial court properly sustained demurrers without leave to amend on the ground that no duty was owed.

## Decision

- The court affirmed dismissal as to USOC, holding plaintiffs did not allege facts establishing USOC owed them a duty to protect against Gitelman’s criminal conduct.
- The court reversed in part as to USAT, holding plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a duty supporting a direct negligence claim against USAT.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the revived negligence claim against USAT.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant generally has no duty to protect a plaintiff from third-party criminal acts absent an affirmative duty arising from a special relationship between (a) defendant and plaintiff or (b) defendant and the third party.
- A special relationship may be found where the plaintiff is vulnerable and dependent and the defendant has corresponding control over the plaintiff’s welfare or over the third party’s conduct in the relevant setting.
- Even where a special relationship is alleged, courts evaluate whether policy considerations support or limit a duty using the Rowland v. Christian factors (including foreseeability, connection to injury, moral blame, prevention of harm, and burden).
- An organization that controls access to participation through coach registration and has authority to screen, regulate, and discipline coaches at its events may be alleged to have sufficient control to support a duty to take reasonable protective measures for minor athletes.
- Indirect supervisory authority over a governing body, without a direct relationship to athletes or coaches or direct operational control over coaching at events, is insufficient on these allegations to establish a duty to protect athletes from coach abuse.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs stated a negligence claim against USAT because its coach-registration and disciplinary authority at USAT-sponsored competitions plausibly created a special-relationship-based duty, supported by Rowland policy factors, to take reasonable steps to protect minor athletes from foreseeable sexual abuse; plaintiffs did not state a duty-based claim against USOC because its alleged oversight role did not establish a special relationship or direct control tied to the harm.


Brown v. U.S.A. Taekwondo, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1077 (Ct. App. 2019)