Sizing up Penn State's liability in abuse scandal

NEW YORK Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:37am EDT

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Jerry Sandusky trial was loaded with details of the child sex abuse a jury has now convicted the one-time Penn State assistant football coach of carrying out over 15 years, but it revealed little about the university's potential liability in the scandal.

That is likely to change in a related prosecution of two former university officials: athletic director Tim Curley and finance official Gary Schultz.

Both have been charged with perjury and failing to alert authorities to one act of sexual abuse by Sandusky in a scandal that tarnished Pennsylvania State University's name and led to the firing of its president and its head football coach, the late Joe Paterno.

"Their trial will be much more an indictment of Penn State," said Max Kennerly, a Philadelphia lawyer who is not involved in the case.

A trial date has not been set.

Late Friday, the jury in Sandusky's criminal trial found him guilty of 45 out of the 48 charges against him after about 21 hours of deliberation over two days. He faces hundreds of years in prison.

DEEP POCKETS

Now, attention will turn to compensating the victims.

With $4.6 billion in operating revenue reported for the last fiscal year and an endowment topping $1.8 billion, Penn State is a flush civil litigation target for Sandusky's victims.

At least one unidentified male has already filed a lawsuit against the university for failing to protect him from Sandusky. He is initially seeking more than $50,000 in damages, the standard amount in Pennsylvania courts to trigger a jury trial.

To hold the school liable, an victim would have to show that Penn State - through its employees - owed the boys a duty of care and that they failed to uphold that duty.

Legal experts said they expect more civil suits to be filed soon against Penn State and media reports have suggested that the total number of victims could be closer to 20. Victims of sexual abuse often wait until a criminal proceeding has concluded to initiate civil litigation.

Following Friday's verdict, Penn State issued a statement inviting victims to participate in discussions toward a resolution of their claims against the university.

"The university plans to invite victims of Mr. Sandusky's abuse to participate in a program to facilitate the resolution of claims against the university arising out of Mr. Sandusky's conduct," the statement said.

"The purpose of the program is simple - the university wants to provide a forum where the university can privately, expeditiously and fairly address the victims' concerns and compensate them for claims relating to the university."

Penn State had previously declined to comment for this story.

The situation Penn State faces has drawn comparisons to the sexual abuse allegations that have dogged the Roman Catholic Church and prompted calls for the university to set up a victims' compensation fund. So far, Penn State has not established such a fund.

In Sandusky's trial, the prosecution's case relied mostly on the testimony of eight of the 10 victims, who described being molested by Sandusky in graphic detail.

ESTABLISHING RESPONSIBILITY

While a conviction of the former coach would bolster any civil case against Penn State by establishing that molestation occurred, a conviction of Schultz and Curley could help in establishing Penn State's responsibility, legal experts said.

A grand jury report made public in November found that Curley and Schultz, who oversaw the campus police, lied about their response to a 2002 report from Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant for the football team. McQueary testified to he told Curley and Schultz he witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in a shower on campus.

NBC reported last week that newly obtained evidence includes emails showing Curley, Schultz and former Penn State President Graham Spanier discussing how to handle the McQueary report. Spanier and Schultz, according to NBC, agreed that it would be "humane" to not report Sandusky to social services agencies.

Prosecutors for the Pennsylvania attorney general alluded to the new evidence in recently filed court papers. They claimed that a grand jury had "long ago" subpoenaed evidence relating to Sandusky from Penn State, but that the university only recently provided a file that was maintained by Schultz.

In a statement following the NBC report, Penn State said the emails were discovered during the course of an independent investigation led by former FBI Director Louis Freeh and were immediately turned over to the state attorney general.

Lawyers for Curley and Schultz, meanwhile, said the files show the two men "conscientiously" considered McQueary's report and "deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct and handle the situation properly."

UNKNOWN COST

It's impossible to know what the cost to Penn State ultimately might be. There is no formula for damages in sexual abuse cases and there are no caps on damages. Lawyers who specialize in sex abuse cases say damages can vary widely from case to case, depending on the harm done to the victim.

Last week, a jury in Northern California awarded $7 million in compensatory damages and an additional $21 million in punitive damages to a woman who claimed the Jehovah's Witnesses allowed one of its members to sexually abuse her when she was a child. Lawyers for the plaintiff say they believe the award is the largest ordered in the United States in a religious child abuse case for a single victim.

Another variable that could determine Penn State's liability is what portion of blame a jury assigns to it. If a verdict is returned in a civil case brought by one of Sandusky's victims, a jury may be asked to determine how much of a judgment Penn State should be required to pay.

"That will be a big issue," said Stephen Estey, an attorney who has litigated sex abuse cases. "The defense is going to say we didn't commit the crime."

(Editing by Doina Chiacu)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (56)
docky wrote:
why no liability on the DA’s office that dropped the case for inexplicable reasons in 1998?

Jun 23, 2012 9:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
freecheese wrote:
I’m not a lawyer, but since Penn State is a state university, wouldn’t judgemets be paid by the taxpayers of the state of PA ?
I know of a county clerk who was sued by the citizens, and city funds paid for the settlement — not the corrupt official.

Jun 23, 2012 9:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JayDavis wrote:
The only thing Penn State can say to the plaintiffs’ lawyers is “Who do we make the check out to and how much?”.

Jun 23, 2012 9:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.