## Facts

- Former boarding-school students alleged they were sexually abused in the mid-1960s by Brother Daniel Kazmarek while he taught at a Catholic school in the Diocese of Madison.
- Plaintiffs alleged Kazmarek had previously sexually abused children while teaching at a school within the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
- The complaint alleged the Archdiocese learned of the earlier abuse and promised victims’ parents Kazmarek would receive treatment and would not again have unsupervised contact with children.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese failed to disclose Kazmarek’s prior abuse to the Diocese of Madison and failed to ensure he was not placed in another teaching position with access to children.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Diocese of Madison employed or permitted Kazmarek to teach at its boarding school and failed to protect students through reasonable supervision, retention practices, and safeguards.
- Plaintiffs sued the Archdiocese and the Diocese asserting negligence and related tort theories, including negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, based on nondisclosure and institutional handling of known abuse.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a negligence-based claim against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee for alleged nondisclosure and failure to prevent Kazmarek’s later access to children in another diocese.
2. Whether the complaint stated a negligence-based claim against the Diocese of Madison for negligent supervision/retention and failure to protect students from Kazmarek.
3. Whether, even assuming foreseeability and cause-in-fact, Wisconsin public policy factors barred liability for the alleged injuries.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the negligence-based theories against both the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the Diocese of Madison were barred by public policy considerations.
- As to the Archdiocese, the court concluded that imposing liability for later abuse occurring in a different diocese and time period was too attenuated and would create an unreasonable scope of institutional exposure.
- As to the Diocese of Madison, the court concluded the pleaded theories likewise could not proceed given the policy limits the court applied to the asserted institutional negligence claims.
- No relief was awarded; the claims were dismissed at the pleadings stage.

## Legal Principles

- Wisconsin recognizes a broad, general duty of ordinary care: a person must refrain from acts or omissions that may foreseeably cause harm to others, even if the specific victim is unknown at the time.
- Even when general duty and foreseeability are assumed, Wisconsin courts may deny liability on public policy grounds.
- Public policy factors include whether the injury is too remote from the alleged negligence, whether liability would impose an unreasonable burden, and whether the theory would open the door to unmanageably broad or indefinite liability.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, well-pleaded facts are taken as true; the question is whether the allegations state a claim upon which relief can be granted, including whether public policy forecloses liability as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that, even accepting the allegations as true, public policy considerations barred negligence-based liability against both dioceses for the plaintiffs’ later abuse, and it affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.


Hornback v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 313 Wis. 2d 294, 752 N.W.2d 862 (Wis. 2008)