## Facts

- Daniel Lourim alleged that, from 1965 to 1967, John Swensen sexually abused him while Swensen served as a volunteer Boy Scout leader authorized by the Boy Scouts organizations.
- Lourim alleged Swensen gained the family’s trust through his scouting role, became close to the family, and spent substantial time alone with Lourim.
- Lourim alleged the Boy Scouts were vicariously liable under respondeat superior because the abuse arose from access and authority Swensen obtained through his leader role.
- Lourim also alleged the Boy Scouts were directly negligent for failing to implement screening to prevent child abusers from serving as leaders.
- Lourim sued in 1995 and relied on ORS 12.117, Oregon’s extended limitations period for actions based on conduct constituting child abuse.
- The trial court dismissed both the respondeat superior and negligence claims on an ORCP 21 motion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning (1) sexual assault was outside the scope of employment as a matter of law and (2) ORS 12.117 did not extend to the negligence theories pleaded against the organizations.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a respondeat superior claim that the Boy Scouts could be vicariously liable for Swensen’s abuse at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
2. Whether ORS 12.117 could apply to a vicarious-liability claim against an organization based on an agent’s conduct constituting child abuse, and whether the discovery allegations were adequate to avoid dismissal as time-barred.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the vicarious-liability (respondeat superior) claim and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
- The court held the pleadings permitted an inference that Swensen’s wrongful acts could be found within the scope of his authorized service for respondeat superior purposes, making dismissal improper.
- The court held the vicarious-liability claim was not time-barred as a matter of law because it was “based on conduct that constitutes child abuse” within ORS 12.117 and the pleaded discovery allegations could not be rejected on an ORCP 21 motion.
- The court otherwise affirmed the dismissal to the extent the remaining claims were not revived by its holdings.

## Legal Principles

- On an ORCP 21 motion to dismiss, courts assume the truth of well-pleaded facts and draw reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor; scope-of-employment questions often cannot be resolved categorically on the pleadings.
- Oregon law does not impose a per se rule that sexual abuse by an authorized agent is always outside the scope of employment for respondeat superior; allegations that the abuse grew out of authority, access, and relationships created by authorized duties can be sufficient to reach a factfinder.
- ORS 12.117’s extended limitations period for actions based on conduct that constitutes child abuse can apply to institutional defendants sued on a vicarious-liability theory, even if the institution did not itself commit the abusive acts.
- When ORS 12.117 turns on when the plaintiff discovered the causal connection between the abuse and injury, sufficiently factual discovery allegations generally present a fact question not suitable for dismissal on the pleadings.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court reinstated the plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged the scout leader’s abuse could fall within the scope of authorized service and that ORS 12.117 could extend the time to sue on a vicarious-liability theory, with discovery and scope questions left for later factual determination.


Lourim v. Swensen, 328 Or. 380, 977 P.2d 1157 (Or. 1999)