## Facts

- Lynn Elkington, as guardian ad litem for C____ (a minor), sued Rex Foust, the child’s adoptive father, seeking damages for years of sexual assault and abuse.
- C____’s mother married Foust, who later adopted C____; the family lived in multiple states before residing in Utah.
- The evidence, as the jury accepted it, showed that Foust began abusing C____ when she was about nine years old and continued until she left home at about sixteen.
- The abuse involved escalating sexual acts, including intercourse, accompanied by secrecy demands and threats that frightened the child and contributed to her silence.
- The plaintiff presented evidence of serious and lasting psychological injury resulting from the abuse and coercion.
- After a jury trial in Utah’s Second District Court (Davis County), the jury found for the minor and awarded $10,000 in general damages, $2,600 in special damages, and $30,000 in punitive damages.
- Foust appealed, arguing (1) the jury should have been instructed that the minor’s “consent” would bar or reduce recovery, and (2) the verdict—especially punitive damages—was excessive.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to treat the minor’s purported “consent” as a defense to civil liability for sexual assault and abuse by her adoptive father.
2. Whether the jury’s awards of general, special, and punitive damages were so excessive as to require a new trial or reduction.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the minor.
- The court held that a minor’s purported consent did not bar recovery for the sexual abuse at issue, and the trial court did not err in instructing the jury accordingly.
- The court held that the compensatory damages and the $30,000 punitive-damages award were not excessive on this record and did not reflect passion or prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A child’s purported “consent” is not a valid defense to civil liability for sexual assault and sexual abuse committed by an adult, particularly where the adult stands in a parental or authority role and the conduct is coercive and harmful.
- In evaluating jury instructions, the court asks whether the instructions, read as a whole, correctly state the governing law and fairly submit the issues to the jury.
- Parental status does not immunize a parent from civil liability for intentional torts that inflict serious harm on a child, including sexual abuse.
- Compensatory damages for physical and emotional injury are primarily for the factfinder, and an appellate court will not disturb the amount absent a showing that the award is outside the range supported by the evidence.
- Punitive damages may be awarded to punish and deter especially wrongful conduct; a punitive award will be upheld when supported by the nature of the acts and the harm, and when it does not indicate bias, passion, or improper motive by the jury.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict against Rex Foust for sexually abusing his adopted daughter, holding that the minor’s purported consent could not operate as a defense and that the compensatory and punitive damages awarded—given the prolonged, coercive abuse and resulting injury—were not excessive and did not warrant appellate interference.


Elkington v. Foust, 618 P.2d 37 (1980)