The parents filed suit against the hospital which employed a priest as a hospital chaplain, alleging the hospital should be held liable to pay damages for repeated sexual assaults upon their young son by the priest.

   The Court of Appeals of Ohio ruled that the legal allegations against the hospital were unfounded, and sanctioned dismissal of the suit by a lower court.

   (See Sexual Abuse Of Former Patient By Hospital Employee: Hospital Liable If It Knows Perpetrator’s Psych History., Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing Profession (3)12, Sep. ‘95, p. 7. http://www.nursinglaw.com/sexualabuse2.htm    In that case, a male hospital employee struck up a relationship with a young male patient while working at the hospital. He began seeing and assaulting the boy only after he had quit working at the hospital. The court ruled the hospital would be liable if it knew or had reason to suspect the perpetrator had a psych history suggesting he could be prone to abusive sexual contact with young males.)

   Although the priest was employed by the hospital as chaplain during the time frame when the sexual assaults took place, the assaults had nothing to do with the hospital. They did not occur on hospital property or while the priest was on duty as hospital chaplain. The court ruled there was no legal duty for the hospital to try to foresee the actions of a hospital employee outside the course and scope of his official duties at the hospital.