Case Citation:
Brown v USA Taekwondo, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1077 (2019)
Court:
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
Date:
2019
Parties Involved:
- Plaintiffs: Yazmin Brown, Brianna Bordon, and Kendra Gatt, three young athletes who were sexually abused by their taekwondo coach, Marc Gitelman.
- Defendants: Marc Gitelman (coach), USA Taekwondo (USAT), and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).
Facts of Brown v USA Taekwondo
In Brown v. USA Taekwondo, the plaintiffs were three teenage female athletes—Yazmin Brown, Brianna Bordon, and Kendra Gatt—who were involved in the sport of taekwondo. The coach, Marc Gitelman, was a certified instructor under USA Taekwondo (USAT), the sport’s national governing body in the United States. Gitelman sexually abused the plaintiffs during USAT-sanctioned competitions. After Gitelman was convicted of felony sexual abuse, the plaintiffs filed a negligence lawsuit against Gitelman, USAT, and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), claiming that the organizations had failed in their duty to control Gitelman and protect them from his actions.
The plaintiffs alleged that both USAT and USOC were responsible for ensuring a safe environment for athletes and had failed to implement safeguards to prevent such abuse. They argued that both USAT and USOC were negligent in allowing Gitelman to coach young athletes, particularly given the risk of sexual abuse by a trusted coach. The case ultimately turned on whether these two organizations, USAT and USOC, owed a duty to protect the plaintiffs.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed a negligence lawsuit after enduring sexual abuse by their coach, Marc Gitelman. They sued Gitelman, USAT (the national governing body for taekwondo), and USOC (which oversees USAT). Initially, the trial court dismissed the case against USAT and USOC. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, and the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether these governing bodies had a duty to protect athletes from sexual abuse perpetrated by a coach. The Court of Appeal’s decision hinged on whether there was a “special relationship” between the plaintiffs and these organizations.
Issue
The central issue in Brown v USA Taekwondo was whether USA Taekwondo (USAT) and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) had a legal duty to protect the plaintiffs from the sexual abuse inflicted by their coach, Marc Gitelman. More specifically, the case raised the question of whether these organizations should be held liable for the coach’s actions, considering the relationships between the parties involved and the control exercised by the governing bodies over the coach’s conduct.
Rule of Law
The legal question in this case involved the concept of “duty of care” in tort law. To determine whether a duty existed, the Court applied the principles established in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), which helps determine the scope of duties owed by one party to another based on their relationship. In particular, the Court of Appeal considered whether a “special relationship” existed between the plaintiffs and the defendants that would give rise to such a duty.
Brown v USA Taekwondo Judgement
The California Court of Appeal in Brown v USA Taekwondo began by considering whether USAT had a special relationship with the plaintiffs that would create a duty of care. In tort law, a duty of care can arise when one party has a special relationship with another party, such as between an employer and employee or a school and student.
The Court applied the Rowland factors, which are used to evaluate the existence and scope of a duty of care. These factors include the foreseeability of harm, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered harm, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, and the availability of insurance or other means to compensate for the injury.
The Court concluded that USAT did indeed have a special relationship with the plaintiffs, as the national governing body for taekwondo, it had control over Gitelman through its certification process and could have implemented safeguards to protect athletes under its supervision. The Court reasoned that USAT had a responsibility to ensure that coaches like Gitelman were properly vetted and monitored, and given the foreseeable risk of abuse, USAT was obligated to take reasonable steps to prevent such harm. The plaintiffs’ harm was foreseeable, as coaches in a position of trust could exploit that position to sexually abuse athletes. Therefore, USAT had a duty to protect the plaintiffs from abuse by coaches like Gitelman.
Conversely, the Court found that USOC did not have a special relationship with the plaintiffs or Gitelman. USOC’s control over USAT, as the umbrella organization for taekwondo, was deemed too indirect to create a duty of care toward individual athletes or to protect them from coach misconduct. USOC did not have a direct role in certifying coaches or in the day-to-day operations of taekwondo competitions. The Court concluded that while USOC played a role in overseeing USAT’s overall conduct, this did not establish a direct relationship between USOC and the plaintiffs or Gitelman that would impose a duty to protect the plaintiffs from Gitelman’s abuse.
Additionally, the plaintiffs attempted to assert derivative claims based on joint venture, respondeat superior (employer-employee liability), agency, and ratification, which could have potentially held USAT and USOC accountable for Gitelman’s actions. However, the Court found that there were insufficient facts to support these claims. The plaintiffs could not prove that Gitelman acted as an agent or employee of either USAT or USOC in a manner that would make these organizations liable for his misconduct.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal in Brown v USA Taekwondo affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action against USOC, as the Court found that USOC did not owe a duty to protect the plaintiffs from the sexual abuse perpetrated by Gitelman. However, the Court reversed the dismissal of the action against USAT and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that USAT had a special relationship with both the plaintiffs and Gitelman that created a duty to protect the plaintiffs from foreseeable harm, including sexual abuse by coaches.