Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

VIRGINIAOtherA charity is not liable for the negligent acts of its servants or agents ifdue care was exercised in the hiring and retention of them and agents,servants and volunteers of a charity are immune from negligenceliability if they acted directly for the benefit of the charity. Bhatia v.Mehak, Inc., 551 S.E.2d 358 (Va. 2001); See also Moore v. Warren,463 S.E.2d 459 (Va. 1995); Mooring v. Virginia Wesleyan College,et al., 514 S.E.2d 619 (Va. 1999); Cf. J. v. Victory Tabernacle BaptistChurch, 372 S.E.2d 391 (Va. 1988) (Church could be liable fornegligent hiring despite doctrine of charitable immunity where it hireda convicted pedophile and sex offender who repeatedly raped andsexually assaulted a young girl).Sexual misconduct perpetrated while an employee is supposed tobe performing services for the employer or during course of theemployer’s business creates a presumption that the sexual abusewas committed within the scope of employment. Majorana v. CrownCentral Petroleum Corp., 539 S.E.2d 426 (Va. 2000) (Where gasstation attendant sexually assaulted a patron it was for the jury todecide whether the assault was within the scope of employment); Cf.Webb v. United States of America, 24 F. Supp.2d 608 (W.D. Va. 1998)(Doctor’s sexual molestation of patient during examination was notwithin the scope of his employment).– 67 –