Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. Boy Scouts of America

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division

September 30, 2016

JOHN DOE NO. 2, JOHN DOE NO. 3, JOHN DOE NO. 4, JOHN DOE NO. 6, JOHN DOE NO. 7, JOHN DOE NO. 8, JOHN DOE NO. 9, JOHN DOE NO. 10, JOHN DOE NO. 11, JOHN DOE NO. 12, JOHN DOE NO. 13, JOHN DOE NO. 14, JOHN DOE NO. 15, JOHN DOE NO. 16, JOHN DOE NO. 17, and JOHN DOE NO. 18, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, a Congressionally Chartered Corporation, Authorized to Do Business in Illinois; CHICAGO AREA COUNCIL, INC., BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA; and CHICAGO AREA COUNCIL, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 2012 L 13569 The Honorable Moira S. Johnson, Judge Presiding.

          PRESIDING JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Reyes concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          GORDON PRESIDING JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 In 2013, plaintiff John Doe 2 joined an existing lawsuit against defendants Thomas Hacker, Boy Scouts of America (BSA), and the Chicago Area Council (CAC), as 1 of 18 plaintiffs alleging that they were sexually abused as children by Hacker, their former scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts.[1] The present appeal involves the claims of plaintiff Doe 2 only (plaintiff). In addition, Hacker was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant from the lawsuit, so that only the Boy Scout defendants remain.

         ¶ 2 In the current third amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants BSA and CAC (the Boy Scout defendants) knew that Hacker had sexually abused Boy Scouts as a scoutmaster long before his abuse of plaintiff, but they nevertheless allowed Hacker to serve as the scoutmaster for plaintiff's troop, where he sexually abused plaintiff from 1983 to 1986. It is undisputed in this lawsuit that Hacker abused plaintiff at official Boy Scout events and outings between 1983 and 1986. Plaintiff alleges counts of negligence, fraudulent concealment of claims, and equitable estoppel against the Boy Scout defendants.

         ¶ 3 The Boy Scout defendants moved for summary judgment against plaintiff, claiming that plaintiff's action against them was time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. In response, plaintiff argued that his claim was timely under the fraudulent concealment statute (735 ILCS 5/13-215 (West 2012)), where the Boy Scout defendants had concealed their knowledge of Hacker's conduct, thereby concealing their liability for Hacker's actions. The trial court denied the Boy Scout defendants' motion for summary judgment, but upon their motion, certified a question for interlocutory review to this court under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015).

         ¶ 4 The trial court certified the following question to this court:

"Does the fraudulent-concealment statute of limitations permit a plaintiff to maintain an otherwise time-barred action for child sexual abuse when he testifies that he knew, before the action was time-barred, that he had sustained a physical injury from the abuser's conduct and that the abuser had been arrested and tried for similar crimes?"

         ¶ 5 The word "permit" means "to allow" or "to make something possible." Merriam- Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/permit (last visited Sept. 29, 2016). Thus the question asks to decide whether a suit is possible under the stated conditions.

         ¶ 6 In sum, a "no" answer to the above question would mean that, as a matter of law, a plaintiff's knowledge that he had sustained a physical injury and that his abuser was arrested and tried for similar crimes, would bar a plaintiff from invoking the fraudulent concealment statute under all circumstances and against any party who could be potentially liable. We cannot agree with this proposition.

         ¶ 7 As a result, and for the following reasons, we answer "yes" to the certified question.

         ¶ 8 BACKGROUND

         ¶ 9 I. Procedural History

         ¶ 10 In 2013, shortly before turning 40, plaintiff joined this existing case as an additional plaintiff. The current third amended complaint, filed May 28, 2015, includes counts of negligence, fraudulent concealment of claims, and equitable estoppel against the Boy Scout defendants. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant BSA knew that Hacker was a serial pedophile by 1970, when he was first banned from scouting. Nevertheless, defendant BSA allowed Hacker to register with defendant CAC in 1984, where he sexually abused plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the Boy Scout defendants were aware, long before plaintiff entered scouting, that there was a longstanding and widespread problem of adult scout leaders sexually abusing minor scouts and that their system for banning pedophiles (the IV files) was not working. Plaintiff alleges that the Boy Scout defendants negligently failed to protect him from Hacker's abuse, fraudulently concealed all of the above knowledge, and represented to plaintiff that scouting was a safe activity for boys. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant BSA stood in a special, fiduciary relationship with him, such that the Boy Scout defendants had a duty to disclose this knowledge and their culpability for his abuse.

         ¶ 11 The Boy Scout defendants moved for summary judgment against plaintiff on September 12, 2014.[2] Claiming that plaintiff had acknowledged knowing of the wrongfulness of his abuse and at least some of his resulting injuries at the age of 14, the Boy Scout defendants argued that his two-year limitations period for filing suit had been tolled only during the time he was a minor. Because it began to run when he turned 18, the Boy Scout defendants argued, the limitations expired when plaintiff turned 20, nearly 20 years before he filed his claim.

         ¶ 12 In response, plaintiff argued that the Boy Scout defendants had fraudulently concealed his cause of action, which had tolled the statute of limitations until late 2012. Plaintiff argued that the Boy Scout defendants' affirmative representations that they did not know of Hacker's past history of abuse constituted fraudulent concealment. Plaintiff further argued that, even in the absence of these affirmative acts, defendants' silence constituted fraudulent concealment because they were in a special relationship with him while he was a boy scout and had thus been obligated to inform him of "his cause of action." Because of this fraudulent concealment, plaintiff argued that his claim was timely, as the five-year limitations period provided by the fraudulent concealment statute had started running only in late 2012, shortly before he first learned of his cause of action after viewing publicized Perversion Files.

         ¶ 13 The trial court denied the Boy Scout defendants' motion for summary judgment on January 8, 2015. The report of proceedings shows that the trial court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were in a special relationship with plaintiff, such that they had been required to tell him of his potential claim against them. CAC filed a motion to reconsider denial of its motion for summary judgment on April 20, 2015, which the trial court denied.

         ¶ 14 The Boy Scout defendants filed a motion to certify a question for interlocutory review under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015) on June 12, 2015. On June 30, 2015, the trial court denied the Boy Scout defendants' motion to certify a question for interlocutory review without prejudice. On July 10, 2015, the Boy Scout defendants filed an amended motion to certify a question under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015). On August 17, 2015, the trial court granted the Boy Scout defendants' amended motion. On August 31, 2015, the trial court certified the following question to this court:

"Does the fraudulent-concealment statute of limitations permit a plaintiff to maintain an otherwise time-barred action for child sexual abuse when he testifies that he knew, before the action was time-barred, that he had sustained a physical injury from the abuser's conduct and that the abuser had been arrested and tried for similar crimes?"

         The same day, defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal to this court. We granted the petition on September 30, 2015. As noted above, defendant Hacker was voluntarily dismissed from this lawsuit, and the only remaining claims are against defendants BSA and CAC for negligence, fraudulent concealment and equitable estoppel.

         ¶ 15 On May 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to strike portions of the Boy Scout defendants' brief and to supplement the record on appeal. In this motion, plaintiffs argued that a significant portion of the Boy Scout defendants' brief in support of its Rule 308 appeal contains argument without any factual support or citation to the record, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Jan. 1, 2016). Specifically, plaintiff argued that the Boy Scout defendants' brief references cases of other boy scouts against defendants to argue that plaintiff should have known of his cause of action earlier but that the Boy Scout defendants refuse to disclose the identity of such cases. We granted plaintiff's motion to strike on May 19, 2016, and struck all portions of the Boy Scout defendants' brief not supported by the record on appeal.

         ¶ 16 Below we provide only a summary of the extensive discovery and exhibits that are part of this record on appeal.

         ¶ 17 II. Structure of BSA and CAC

         ¶ 18 According to defendant BSA's charters and bylaws, [3] defendant BSA is organized with a national office in Irving, Texas (the National Council). The National Council grants charters to local councils in every state, and these councils oversee Boy Scout operations on a regional basis. Defendant CAC is one such local council and was responsible for the scouting program in a large part of the Chicago metropolitan area in the 1980s. The head of each local council is called a scout executive. A local council, in turn, is comprised of charter organizations, usually churches, schools, or other civic organizations, which sponsor and form Boy Scout Troops or Cub Scout Troops. For example, the charter organization that sponsored Troop 1600-plaintiff's troop-was St. Louis De Montfort Catholic Church in Burbank, Illinois.

         ¶ 19 According to defendant BSA's rules and regulations, [4] its bylaws require its local councils, such as defendant CAC, to abide by the policies, procedures, rules and regulations of defendant BSA. In order for defendant CAC to receive a charter from defendant BSA, it had to agree to abide by defendant BSA's policies and procedures. Defendant BSA's bylaws and Procedures for Maintaining Standards of Leadership specify its rights to review, approve or remove scout leaders. As the 1982 Procedures for Maintaining Standards of Leadership[5]instructed:

"No person shall be approved as a leader unless, in the judgment of the corporation, that person possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities deemed necessary for leadership and satisfies such other leadership qualifications as it may from time to time require."

         ¶ 20 In his deposition, [6] James Terry, former assistant chief scout executive of defendant BSA, testified that defendant BSA relies on its local councils, such as defendant CAC, and on sponsoring organizations to act on its behalf and carry out defendant BSA's rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. Defendant BSA also relies on local councils to monitor and report suspected child sexual abuse in accord with its policies and procedures. A chartered organization works for the local council, and the local council in turn reports to the National Council.

         ¶ 21 III. The IV Files

         ¶ 22 According to the affidavit of Martin Walsh, [7] manager of the Membership Impact Department of defendant BSA as of 2012, defendant BSA has maintained an "Ineligible Volunteer" file system (the IV files) since approximately 1920.[8] The IV files are a centralized file system that records adults whom, for various reasons, defendant BSA considers ineligible for membership positions. The IV files collect identifying information on such adults. The purpose of the IV files is to prevent these individuals from registering with any scouting organization in the future. According to a 1935 New York Times article, [9] in the first 15 years after defendant BSA created the IV file system, a total of 2919 men were placed in the files, and about 30% of those men had engaged in sexual misconduct with scouts.

         ¶ 23 According to Walsh's affidavit, defendant BSA's IV file system contains a list of the names of banned volunteers and BSA employees who can be cross-referenced to an IV file under the same name. The IV file, in turn, contains detailed information on why the person is banned from scouting. There are different categories of IV files, including those labeled "Perversion, " which relate to adult leaders' sexual misconduct. The Boy Scout defendants have disclosed their Perversion Files[10] for the time period of 1960-90.[11] The disclosed Perversion Files reflect that defendant BSA created at least 2549 files on the sexual misconduct of adult leaders between 1960 and 1990. Many of the disclosed files include identifying information of scout leaders, like Hacker, who had abused numerous children. In 1988, the year of Hacker's arrest, defendant BSA created 314 files for adult volunteers engaging in sexual misconduct with scouts.

         ¶ 24 According to Walsh's affidavit, defendant BSA closely guarded the existence and content of the IV files. Defendant BSA employed just a few people in its central headquarters to manage the IV file system, including a director-level position whose primary responsibility was to maintain the files. In a deposition, [12] Paul Ernst testified that he held the title of BSA's director of Registration and Subscription Services from 1971-93. In his deposition in the present matter, [13] Ernst testified that an integral part of his responsibility as director was to maintain the IV file system and keep it updated. Ernst testified that it is defendant BSA's policy to require all adult leaders to register each year with the organization. All of these registrations were processed through Ernst's office during his tenure as director. Each adult registration during Ernst's tenure was checked yearly against the IV files. In his deposition, Ernst testified that access to the IV files was very limited:

"Q. Who had access to the file cabinet?
A. I did, of course. And we had a couple of employees who worked on these that had access, but it was very limited."

         ¶ 25 The Boy Scout defendants' disclosed Perversion Files show that in 1972, shortly after Ernst took charge of BSA's IV files, he sent a "personal and confidential" letter from defendant BSA's headquarters to "all Scout executives" with the subject "Maintaining Standards of Leadership." In this letter, Ernst informed scout executives that he was enclosing guidelines that were "carefully developed" by defendant BSA to establish the kind of people who were safe to be scout leaders. He further described the confidential nature of such information:

"This is the first time such information has been printed and because of the misunderstandings which could develop if it were widely distributed, we suggest that after you have read it, you file it with other policy statements without making photocopies or sharing it beyond the top management of the council."

         Ernst's memorandum outlined the manner in which local councils should report accusations "that would seem to cause [a leader] to be unfit as a leader or an associate of boys."

         ¶ 26 According to Walsh's affidavit, although scout executives at the local council level know of the existence of the IV files, they do not have access to the files. Their role is to compile supporting documents and forward them to defendant BSA to be placed in a particular adult leader's file. According to Ernst's deposition, local sponsoring or charter organizations, such as the churches and schools, did not have any access to the files during his tenure (1971-93), nor did they have any role in formally providing any documents to defendant BSA for inclusion in any file. Additionally, according to the trial testimony of Nathaniel Marshall, [14] who was senior membership administrator for defendant BSA as of March 4, 2010, defendant BSA never told troop volunteers or Scouts' parents about the existence of the files.

         ¶ 27 The disclosed Perversion Files contain a letter from Ernst to Ralph S. Kroehler, a council executive, dated December 15, 1981, regarding a reported sexual predator in which Ernst wrote:

"Please send me the details which you have in your files. We have always asked that all the records in this type of situation be kept in the national office and not in the local council office because of the embarrassment that could be incurred if the wrong individuals would read the file."

         ¶ 28 The disclosed Perversion Files contain another letter from Paul Ernst, dated November 25, 1985, in which Ernst wrote: "The [IV files are] kept very confidential in this office, since we allow only three individuals to have access."

         ¶ 29 IV. Evidence of Child Abusers Circumventing the IV File System Before 1983

         ¶ 30 The disclosed Perversion Files show that defendant BSA had knowledge before 1983 (the year in which Hacker began abusing plaintiff) of how banned sexual predators were finding ways around the IV system, reentering scouting and continuing to sexually abuse children. For example, the disclosed Perversion Files contain a record of a scoutmaster who, after being removed from scouting in 1972 for sexually abusing boy scouts, was able to move to a new location and reregister as a scout leader, where he sexually abused more boys before his arrest in 1977. Other examples in the disclosed Perversion Files show that flagged sexual predators were able to reregister as "multiples" in the 1970s and 1980s. A "multiple" is a banned individual who, at a new location, lies and says that he is registered with another troop or local council. Lastly, defendant BSA also had knowledge before 1983 that sexual predators were circumventing the IV system by changing their names or using aliases. For instance, the files show that in 1968 defendant BSA learned that a man who was removed from scouting in 1965 for sexually abusing boys had been able to abuse boys in a different council by changing his middle initial. In his response to the Boy Scout defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff provided additional examples of sexual predators successfully circumventing the IV file system.

         ¶ 31 The disclosed Perversion Files contain an internal memorandum from a scout executive to Ernst, dated September 26, 1984, in which the scout executive wrote:

"I am never quite clear on how we should communicate with you about people who we won't readmit into professional scouting.
[Name of banned pedophile] is the kind of person my instinct tells me might very well attempt to resurface somewhere as a volunteer.
If you agree you need to place info about him in your files-how much more information do you need?
I really think we should spend some time discussing cases like this and how we should feed info to you-so we can prevent people like this guy from slipping in as volunteers. To my knowledge, there is no written guideline for either of us to follow. Let me know if you agree that a meeting is in order, and lets [sic] set a time."

         ¶ 32 V. Hacker's History of Child Abuse Prior to 1983

         ¶ 33 Defendant BSA created an IV file for Hacker in 1970.[15] A 1988 newspaper article[16] in Hacker's IV file summarizes Hacker's history of child sexual abuse. The accuracy of the article is supported by letters written by and to defendant BSA in Hacker's IV file. According to the article, Hacker was arrested and charged with assault and battery in Indiana in 1961, after individual boy scouts told their parents that Hacker had entered their tents at night on a campout. Although the charges were dismissed, Hacker was discharged from his teaching position at the time and was suspended as scoutmaster. Hacker was reinstated as scoutmaster after his trial. Hacker held positions in the Indiana public school system and at BSA for the rest of the 1960s.

         ¶ 34 Hacker's IV file contains a letter dated February 26, 1970, from Frank M. Chase, scout executive of the Central Indiana Council at the time, to Ernst's predecessor, Earl L. Krall, director of BSA's Registration & Fulfillment Service at the time. The letter reported three adult leaders, including Hacker, for inappropriate behavior. Chase related that Hacker had been accused of molesting local children and should not remain a member of defendant BSA:

"In addition, I would like to report on Thomas E. Hacker, who has really caused a storm in our council and in Indianapolis. He was registered as a Scoutmaster in the Mt. Olive Methodist Church in the West District a few years ago; we had reports there was a problem. He was removed as Scoutmaster of that troop, but we could not secure anything definite from parents or boys on which we could act. Mr. Hacker was taken to court and released because parents did not appear against him and there was lack of sufficient evidence. At the time, a prominent member of my board called me to say that he knew the family, that Tom was a fine young man, and asked that he not be placed on our 'red flag' list [i.e., IV file system]. Because of no concrete evidence, at the time, we did not do this for which I have had many hours of regret.
Also, at the time Mr. Hacker was a bachelor. He moved to Charlottesville on the east edge of Hancock County, married (in fact he now has two sons), then moved back into the city in the school system on the east side, and, frankly, with over 9, 000 leaders and not being close to many of them, we made the mistake of not banning Tom from leadership in our council. In 1964, he did register as an Assistant Scoutmaster in one of the finest troops on the far east side of Marion County. He served two years there, and then he dropped out or was asked to drop out. If he was asked to leave, we did not receive any information of anything wrong at the time. In October of 1968, he registered as Scoutmaster of another troop on the far east side of Indianapolis. The District Executive became suspicious a couple of months ago, and he finally met with the Troop Committee and Hacker was asked to resign. We were placing him on our 'red flag' list when everything broke. I am enclosing the two newspaper clippings which give the story. This man should not be allowed to register in the Boy Scouts of America at any time or any place."

         Hacker's IV file contains the newspaper article referred to in the above letter.[17] The newspaper article reported that police had compiled a list of 51 names of boys whom Hacker allegedly molested as a schoolteacher in Indianapolis and that Hacker had been indicted on a charge of assault and battery to gratify sexual desires.

         ¶ 35 Hacker's IV file contains return correspondence dated March 18, 1970, from Krall to Chase, in which Krall confirmed receipt of the letter and newspaper article about Hacker's child molestation charges. Krall wrote: "We have placed this information in our file and have taken steps to have [the names of Hacker and two others] deleted from our records." In the correspondence, Krall also requested that Chase fill out a "confidential record sheet" for Hacker and the two other men. He explained: "[These sheets] will enable us to identify all three men, should they ever again attempt to register in the Scouting program."

         ¶ 36 Hacker's IV file contains Hacker's confidential record sheet, which is dated June 8, 1970, and signed by Chase. The sheet notes that Hacker had been a scoutmaster for a troop in Indianapolis from October 1967 to March 1970 and describes the reason for creating an IV file on Hacker:

"Arrested for homosexual activity with many boys both in scouting and through the school in which he was teaching. Grand jury has indicted him. Trial to be conducted in August, 1970. He has resigned his teaching position."

         ¶ 37 In return correspondence from Krall to Chase, dated June 15, 1970, Krall confirmed receipt of the confidential record sheet on Hacker and requested that Chase write him again to notify him of the outcome of Hacker's trial. The record does not contain a response from Chase.

         ¶ 38 Hacker's police record[18] shows that he pled guilty in 1970 to assault and battery with the intent to gratify sexual desires. A judge in Indianapolis gave him a one- to five-year suspended sentence and two years of probation.

         ¶ 39 Hacker's IV file contains a letter, dated October 27, 1971, by Arthur J. Allen, scout executive of the Northwest Suburban Council (local council for the northwest suburbs of Chicago), in which he wrote to Ernst, who had just become the supervisor of BSA's Registration and Membership, that Hacker had molested a child in Des Plaines, Illinois:

"Mr. Thomas Edwards *** is currently registered as District Publicity Committee Chairman, and Scoutmaster of Troop #117, Northwest Suburban Council.
Within the last week, it has come to our attention, that Mr. Edwards has been arrested on charges of taking indecent liberties with a child. Mr. Thomas Edwards is also known as Mr. Thomas Hacker.
We have also been able to learn that Mr. Edwards was very active in Scouting in the Central Indiana Council, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Enclosed you will find a photocopy of a local news article pertaining to the incident.
We have removed Mr. Edwards from both Scouting capacities locally, and would appreciate any additional information or guidance that you might be able to provide."

         ¶ 40 Hacker's IV file contains a reply letter from Ernst to Allen dated November 2, 1971:

"Thank you for your letter of October 27 concerning Thomas Edwards. You have uncovered the case of a furtive individual who has successfully attained registration in the Boy Scouts of America by changing his name. We have had Mr. Thomas E. Hacker on the Confidential File since June, 1970 for exactly the same reasons you presented.
Under no circumstances do we want this man registered in Scouting. We are taking steps to have his name deleted from our records and adding the additional information you sent to his file."

         ¶ 41 Hacker's police record shows that he was convicted in Cook County of taking indecent liberties with a child on November 23, 1971.

         ¶ 42 Hacker's police record shows that the Oak Lawn police department arrested him on June 19, 1976, for grabbing a victim, throwing him down on the floor, and pulling his pants down.

         ¶ 43 VI. Hacker's Abuse of Plaintiff

         ¶ 44 In his affidavit, [19] plaintiff averred that he joined the Boy Scouts in the fall of 1983 at the age of 10. He was a scout in Troop 1600. Plaintiff joined the Boy Scouts because many of his friends were involved, and because his parents thought that the organization would instill positive values in him and offer a safe, social activity. When he joined the troop, plaintiff received a copy of the Official Scout Handbook (the handbook). The handbook instructed scouts on a variety of topics. It contained the scout oath and guidelines for living a healthy and moral life. The handbook functioned as a guide for helping a boy become a man. It instructed plaintiff and other scouts about the importance of a scoutmaster. It indicated that plaintiff could look to his scoutmaster for advice. The handbook's references to the importance of the scoutmaster made it clear to plaintiff that he should trust and be loyal to his scoutmaster. Plaintiff was loyal to his scoutmaster and trusted the Boy Scouts when he joined. He took the scout oath seriously, and obeyed scout law to the best of his ability. He was obedient to his superiors, including his scoutmaster. Plaintiff averred that nothing in the handbook, or any other instruction that plaintiff was given, provided him with information about protecting himself from sexual abuse; nothing in the handbook provided any warning or history of sexual abuse of scouts by adult leaders.

         ¶ 45 Plaintiff averred in his affidavit that Hacker became his scoutmaster shortly after plaintiff joined the troop. Hacker accompanied the troop on virtually every scout outing, and acted in a friendly, cordial way toward plaintiff upon meeting him. Hacker initially behaved like a friend that plaintiff felt he could trust, matching the handbook's description of a scoutmaster. Plaintiff's affidavit stated that both plaintiff and his parents trusted Hacker because he was scoutmaster and because he was an important leader in the troop. Plaintiff believes that his parents trusted Hacker and considered scouting to be a safe activity because they would not have let him participate in activities that they did not deem to be safe. Plaintiff also averred that his parents believed that Hacker was a vetted and trustworthy leader in the Boy Scouts because of his prominent role in the organization. Plaintiff did not believe that Hacker would harm him, given Hacker's role in scouting. Plaintiff averred that plaintiff's parents would not have allowed him to participate in scouting or be alone with Hacker if they had known that he sexually abused children in Indiana and the Northwest suburbs of Chicago.

         ¶ 46 As we observed earlier, it is undisputed that Hacker sexually abused plaintiff between 1983 and 1986 at official Boy Scout events and outings. In his deposition, [20] plaintiff testified that Hacker's abuse started gradually, but became very aggressive. The sexual abuse included Hacker's fondling of plaintiff's genitals, mutual masturbation, oral sex and anal rape. Plaintiff estimated that Hacker abused him on 100 occasions. Plaintiff experienced intense physical pain during Hacker's first act of anal penetration and bled afterwards. Some of Hacker's sexual abuse of plaintiff occurred in a group setting, with other boy scouts present. During the period of Hacker's abuse, plaintiff experienced extreme emotional distress and physical pain. He testified that, at one point, Hacker threatened to kill his parents. Hacker's sexual abuse of plaintiff ended sometime in 1986.

         ¶ 47 In defendant BSA's response to plaintiff's third request to admit, (1) defendant BSA admitted that it had received a charter renewal overflow page from Boy Scout Troop 1600 in Burbank, Illinois, in February of 1984, (2) defendant BSA admitted that a document attached by plaintiff in his third request to admit was that charter renewal overflow page, and (3) defendant BSA admitted that the charter renewal overflow page identified an adult member as "Tom Hacker."

         ¶ 48 Plaintiff averred in his affidavit that once the abuse ended, he did everything he could to move past it. He successfully blocked the abuse out of his mind. He did not let it impact his activities or education. He eventually obtained a master's degree and embarked on a successful career

         ¶ 49 VII. Hacker's 1988 Arrest and Conviction

         ¶ 50 Hacker's IV file shows that he was arrested in Burbank, Illinois, in 1988 and charged with sexually assaulting young boys between 1983 and 1987 on Boy Scout campouts. According to a State Police report, attached as an exhibit to defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff was interviewed by Illinois State Police officers and investigators with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in connection with Hacker's arrest and sexual assault charges on February 8, 1988, when plaintiff was 14 years old. According to the State Police report, plaintiff told them that he had observed Hacker engage in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.