Employers Not Liable for Abuse, Courts Say

Legal experts said the phrase "natural person" is not common in similar legislation in other states.

Marci Hamilton, a law professor at New York's Cardozo Law School and author of a newly published book, "God vs. the Gavel," said many states have passed legislation allowing adults to seek damages for childhood abuse that took place years earlier.

But, Hamilton added, "I don't know of any state that uses 'natural person' as part of the statute. . . . It doesn't make any sense to have that language in there unless they were trying to protect institutional wealth."

The wording "doesn't reflect reality, particularly in the case of abuse in the church," said Mark Serrano, regional representative of the victim advocacy group Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. "The reality is that perpetrators wouldn't have been so successful at luring victims had their bishop, their church place, their employer not enabled them to continue . . . in ministry serving around children."

Leafe ruled in the case of a man who filed a $5.3 million suit against a former nun, the Richmond diocese and the nun's order, seeking damages for being sexually abused by the nun 35 years ago when he was in fifth grade at a Catholic school in Virginia Beach.

The former nun was convicted last year of molesting the man and served about 90 days of a six-month sentence, Lewis said.

Stout's decision came in a Richmond lawsuit filed against the diocese by Stephen Kopalchick, 52, of Chester, Va., who alleged that two priests abused him 40 years ago. One of the priests is dead; the other has Alzheimer's disease and lives in Spain.

Weiner, who represents Kopalchick, said Stout's ruling came after months of expensive preparation for a trial set to start in September. Kopalchick, he added, has "poured a lot of money into this" and has not decided whether to appeal.

Kopalchick, noting that corporations are widely regarded as "persons" in U.S. law, said he did not see why putting "natural" in front of "person" should change that.

"If I have a ball and if I put the word 'green' in front of it doesn't mean it's not a ball," Kopalchick said. "Defining 'person' that way bothers me, and it bothers me a lot."