Facts

Masonic Homes of California maintains two group residential care facilities in California, one in Union City and one in Covina. In the 1960s, two young girls from broken homes were placed in Masonic Homes' Covina location. The girls resided at Masonic Homes for their entire childhoods. Now in their 40s, the women filed a lawsuit against Masonic Homes, claiming they were sexually abused while residing there. The women were the first of 14 total plaintiffs who claimed they were sexually abused by Masonic Homes' employees and agents while they resided at the Covina location from the late 1960s to the 1990s. Ten of the 12 remaining plaintiffs' cases against Masonic Homes are set for trial through April 2007.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs claimed they were both repeatedly sexually abused by Masonic Homes' employees and agents. The molestation started when they were as young as seven years old and continued for one of the plaintiffs until she was in her mid-teens. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was aware that Earl Pearson and Randy Azelton, two of its employees, were committing unlawful sexual acts against them, yet failed to take any action to stop the abuse.

The plaintiffs further claimed that Pearson admitted that he had regular contact with the plaintiffs and posed in a 1968 Junior Girls Dormitory picture with two young girls on his lap. Over the defendant's objection, Azelton, a houseparent, testified that he repeatedly abused one of the plaintiffs when she was 15 years old and should have reported the abuse to the defendant. Plaintiffs counsel claimed that the defendant's former employees and residents testified that the defendant was aware of the dangers that pedophiles posed because it actually sought to detect and prevent sexual abuse at its location throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant denied responsibility for Pearson's sexual abuse of the plaintiffs, arguing that although Pearson was married to a houseparent and lived in the plaintiffs' dormitory, he was not an agent, employee or representative of the defendant. In response to Azelton's testimony, the defense argued through its expert psychologist that Azelton was in a relationship with the girl. Through the testimony of its experts, the defense took the position that the community was not aware of childhood sexual abuse occurring in the 1960s and 1970s.

Result

$3,531,200. A jury found the defendant at fault for the abuse despite having the opportunity to allocate fault between the defendant and Pearson and Azelton. The jury awarded $1,915,600 in damages to the plaintiff who was sexually abused by Pearson and Azelton. the jury awarded $1,615,600 to the other plaintiff who was sexually abused by Pearson. A jury unanimously determined that the defendant knew or had reason to know that Pearson was sexually molesting both of the plaintiffs in the late 1960s. The jury also unanimously determined that the defendant knew or had reason to know that Azelton was sexually molesting one of the plaintiffs in the mid-1970s. Further, the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the abuse. The defendant was also found to be negligent in its hiring, supervision and retention of its employees and agents.

Other Information

Although the original statute of limitations for both of the plaintiffs' claims expired when they turned 19 years old in the late 1970s, both plaintiffs filed their claims in 2003 under California's Childhood Sexual Abuse Revival Statute (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1). Based on the jury's unanimous findings, both plaintiffs' claims for childhood sexual abuse were revived in the first phase of the trial. It is believed that this is the first institutional molestation case revived and decided by a jury in Los Angeles County.