The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the employer and co-worker of a man who sexually abused a minor can face no civil liability for failing to report their colleague to authorities.

The justices reversed a decision by the Appellate Division, which had found that common law did not preclude imposition of such a duty on the employer, GEM Ambulance of Lakewood, and the co-worker.

Although the man often shared details of his sexual relationship, there was no evidence that the co-worker knew he was having sex with a minor, the Supreme Court said. Therefore, the court found no basis to find the co-worker or employer liable. Consequently, the justices found no need to address whether a co-worker or employer has a legal duty to report that person is having a sexual relationship with a minor.

The perpetrator was identified in court papers by the pseudonym of Kenneth, and his co-worker were identified as Arthur. Kenneth was 44 when he began a six-month relationship with a 15-year-old girl in September 2010. The age of consent in New Jersey is 16. After the girl told her mother about the relationship with Kenneth, he pleaded guilty to various criminal offenses.

The girl filed a civil suit against Kenneth, Arthur, GEM and others in 2015. She claimed that Arthur was liable for failing to report Kenneth's conduct to authorities and that GEM was vicariously liable for Arthur's failure to report Kenneth's conduct. The suit also claimed GEM was negligent in hiring, training and supervising Arthur and Kenneth.

A default judgment was entered against Kenneth. A trial judge granted summary judgment to Arthur and to GEM, finding no evidence he knew that Kenneth was engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor.

However, the Appellate Division vacated the trial court's award of summary judgment. The panel said the record was not sufficiently developed to determine whether Arthur knew Kenneth was having an illicit sexual relationship with the plaintiff. The court cited J.S. v. R.T.H., a Supreme Court case from 1998, which held that “a wife who suspects or should suspect her husband of actual or prospective sexual abuse of their neighbors' children has a duty of care to prevent such abuse.”

Before the Supreme Court, the justices found no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Arthur knew or had a special reason to know that Kenneth was engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor. Accordingly, the court said, Arthur had no duty to report Kenneth.

Arthur's lawyer argued that the Appellate Division ruling created a vague, ill-defined duty that could lead to liability in many unanticipated situations, thus leaving the public without adequate notice as to when a duty can be imposed for failure to report sexual abuse. The plaintiff's lawyer argued that there was a reasonable basis for Arthur to believe Kenneth was in a sexual relationship with a minor and that Arthur therefore should have a duty to report the relationship. The plaintiff's lawyer maintained that Arthur should have known from photos that Kenneth showed him on his flip phone of the plaintiff that she was below the age of consent.

Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina wrote that judging someone's age based on appearance alone is difficult, particularly from a cellphone picture. “A small cellphone image of a naked female does not give rise to a special reason to know that Kenneth was engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor,” Fernandez-Vina wrote for the court.

“I believe that the court did exercise appropriate judicial restraint in confining its consideration to the facts of this case,” said George Hardin of Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto in Springfield, a lawyer for GEM Ambulance. “The plaintiffs' claims contended that the co-worker, and vicariously, the employer should have drawn inferences from comments that the perpetrator made about his private life while he was in the workplace. We argued that, if you carry that contention to its logical conclusion, if you allow liability to be imposed under the circumstances, then every co-worker and every employer would necessarily have to be listening to everyone else's comments about their private life to see if they were committing a crime.”

Arthur's lawyer, Frances Wang Deveney of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly in Cherry Hill, said the court made the right decision and her client was happy to put the case behind him.