## Facts

- Steven Fearing alleged that, in the early 1970s while he was a minor, parish priest Melvin Bucher sexually abused him.
- During 1970–1972, Bucher served as a parish priest and youth pastor and was employed by the Archdiocese of Portland.
- Fearing alleged that Bucher acted as his youth pastor, confessor, and priest, and that Fearing and his family placed trust and confidence in him as a spiritual advisor and friend.
- The family allegedly permitted Bucher frequent, unsupervised access to Fearing, including visits to the family home and outings alone with him.
- The complaint alleged that Bucher’s physical touching, connected to his priestly role and pastoral interactions, escalated into sexual assault.
- Fearing sued the Archdiocese on (1) respondeat superior (vicarious liability) for Bucher’s conduct and (2) direct negligence for negligent retention, supervision, and training.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged facts sufficient to permit a finding that Bucher’s conduct, culminating in sexual abuse, occurred within the scope of his employment for purposes of respondeat superior.
2. Whether Oregon’s extended child-abuse limitations statute, ORS 12.117, applies to an employer when liability is purely vicarious under respondeat superior.
3. Whether the complaint’s negligent retention/supervision/training allegations were sufficient to invoke ORS 12.117 against the Archdiocese, or were time-barred.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the respondeat superior claim and reinstated it.
- The court held that ORS 12.117’s extended limitation period applies to the respondeat superior claim against the Archdiocese.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the direct negligence claim for negligent retention, supervision, and training as untimely.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the vicarious liability claim.

## Legal Principles

- Scope of employment analysis for respondeat superior may consider the employee’s overall employment-related conduct that allegedly enabled and led to the tort, not solely the tort in isolation.
- At the pleading stage, allegations that an employee used assigned duties and an employment-created position of trust to gain access to a child and commit abuse may be sufficient to permit a factfinder to decide scope of employment.
- ORS 12.117 applies to actions “based on conduct that constitutes child abuse,” including claims against an employer premised on respondeat superior, because such claims depend on proving the underlying child-abuse conduct.
- For a direct negligence claim to receive ORS 12.117’s extended limitations period against an institutional defendant, allegations of mere negligence in supervision or retention are insufficient absent allegations meeting the statute’s requirements for knowing allowance, permission, or encouragement of abuse (or other conduct covered by the statute).

## Conclusion

The court permitted a vicarious liability claim against a church employer to proceed where the alleged abuse was linked to the priest’s pastoral role and held that ORS 12.117 extends the time to sue on that respondeat superior theory, while leaving direct negligent supervision/retention claims dismissed as time-barred for lack of statutory allegations required to extend limitations.


Fearing v. Bucher, 328 Or. 367, 977 P.2d 1163 (Or. 1999)