## Facts

- Two neighboring families in Vineland, New Jersey became close after moving next door to each other.
- Plaintiffs’ two minor daughters (ages 12 and 15) spent substantial recreational time at the neighbors’ horse barn, often alone with the adult male neighbor while riding and caring for horses.
- Over more than a year, the male neighbor sexually abused both girls; he later pled guilty to endangering the welfare of minors and received an 18-month prison sentence.
- Plaintiffs sued the abuser and also sued his wife, alleging she knew or should have known of her husband’s propensity for sexual abuse and failed to take steps to prevent the abuse or warn the children’s parents.
- The wife denied owing any duty to the girls and argued her inaction could not be a proximate cause of her husband’s intentional assaults.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse who suspects or should suspect the other spouse is abusing or likely to abuse identifiable children owes a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the abuse or warn potential victims or their guardians.
2. Whether a spouse’s breach of that duty, by omission, can constitute a proximate cause of injuries from the other spouse’s sexual abuse.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of summary judgment for the wife.
- The Court recognized a limited duty: a spouse with actual knowledge or a special reason to know the other spouse is abusing or likely to abuse an identifiable victim must take reasonable steps to prevent or warn of the harm.
- The Court held that breach of that duty can be a proximate cause of the resulting injuries, and that proximate cause on this record was not suitable for disposition by summary judgment.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings, including extended discovery, on the negligence claim against the wife.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in negligence turns on fairness and public policy, assessed through factors including foreseeability and severity of risk, relationships among the parties, and the defendant’s opportunity and ability to prevent harm.
- For third-party sexual abuse, foreseeability requires a particularized analysis tied to the defendant’s knowledge; it may rest on actual knowledge or constructive knowledge amounting to a “special reason to know” of abuse or its likelihood.
- Marital relationship and privacy interests do not categorically bar imposing a duty where necessary to protect children from sexual abuse, especially when victims are identifiable and preventive action is feasible.
- The duty is not based on marital status alone; it arises only when the non-abusing spouse has actual knowledge or special reason to know of the risk and fails to take reasonable steps (such as confronting the spouse, limiting access, warning guardians, or reporting to authorities).
- An intervening intentional act by the abuser does not automatically sever causation; whether the non-abusing spouse’s omission was a substantial factor enabling continued abuse may present a jury question.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse who has actual knowledge or a special reason to know that the other spouse is abusing or likely to abuse identifiable children owes a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or warn of the harm, and that failure to do so may be found a proximate cause of the children’s injuries, precluding summary judgment on the negligence claim.


J.S. v. R.T.H., 155 N.J. 330, 714 A.2d 924 (N.J. 1998)