Eric J V

Eric J v. Betty M Facts: In 1989, Robert and Helen started their relationship. During this time, Helen was unaware that Robert was a convicted child molester. Robert began molesting Helen’s eight-year-old son, Eric, unbeknownst to Helen. Robert welcomed Helen and Eric into many of his family member’s homes. During these multiple visits to different family member’s homes, none of the family members told Helen about his past. Soon, Helen learned the truth. She, acting as Eric’s guardian, then sued Robert for the sexual abuse. Robert was then convicted yet again of child molestation and was sentenced to prison. Helen then filed suit against some of Robert’s family members due to them failing to tell her about Robert’s convictions. The trial court dismissed the case on a nonsuit motion. Issue: Whether or not the court accurately dismissed the claim since the family members of a convicted child molester have no responsibility to inform Robert’s former girlfriend of his past. Rule: The court held that the family members had no responsibility to inform Helen of Robert’s convictions. Analysis: The court put emphasis on the “no duty to aid” rule. The court discussed how it was more of Robert’s place to inform his significant other of his past and his convictions. The court decided that the family members of Robert had no affirmative duty to tell Helen of this information. The court used past cases, including Williams v. State of California, which started the “no duty to aid” rule. This rule simply implies that someone who has not done the harm or created the danger does not have a responsibility to tell others of the situation, unless there is a “duty to act”. Conclusion: The judgment in favor of the respondents is affirmed. Because we affirm the judgment, the protective cross appeal is moot.