Rob and Bunny Sherman want to file a suit against the Church of the Divine Light. They allege that one year ago, their 15 year old son called Rob Jr., was coerced into staying in the church. He was threatened by being told that if he left, he would be thrown into the eternal fires of hell. He was brainwashed and began believing that the church was his new family. He was also told to demand money from his parents to cater for his upkeep. Rob Jr. stayed in the church for a period of approximately six months. Rob Sr. and Bunny were able to rescue their son under the ruse of giving him money for that month. The courses of action that Rob Sr. and Bunny can pursue against the Church of the Divine Light, and the damages that they can recover are hereby explored. The possible defenses that the church can raise against them are also evaluated.
ISSUE 1: ACTION FOR THE TORT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Rob Jr. has a strong course of action against the church for the tort false imprisonment. The tort of false imprisonment entails restraining a person in a place without consent or justification.
Rule of law
§35 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that a person incurs liability for false imprisonment if he or she does the following: if his intention is to confine another person within boundaries that he or she has fixed; if his actions indirectly or directly result in the confinement of the other person, and of the other person is aware of the confinement or suffers harm due to the confinement (Batten & Gale Group, 2011).
Analysis
Rob Sr. and Bunny Sherman can successfully claim that their son was subjected to false imprisonment by the Church of the Divine Light since he was confined wrongly. To establish the claim, they must prove that Rob Jr., was intentionally deprived of the freedom of movement through the use of unreasonable duress, deceit, fraud, threats of force, actual force, or physical barrier; that Rob Jr. did not consent knowingly; that Rob Jr. suffered actual harm; and that the actions of the Church of the Divine Light were significant factors in causing the harm he suffered. In Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc. 45 Cal. App. 4th 990 (1996), false imprisonment was defined as the intentional non-consensual confinement of someone without lawful privilege for a considerable duration of time no matter how short (Stein, 2008). The decision of the Supreme Court of California in Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity 46 Cal.3d 1092 (1988) 46 Cal. 3d at 1092 was pivotal since it was held that false imprisonment does not have to involve arrests (Rabin, 2009). It was also held that false imprisonment does not have to involve the threat of force or force as unreasonable duress, deceit, or fraud can suffice.
Conclusion
Rob's parents should file a suit of false imprisonment against the Church of the divine Light, and file a course of action for damages. They had the right to use reasonable force to flee their son from the confinement. They should be compensated for the mental suffering of Rob, the necessary and reasonable expenses incurred due to the false imprisonment, and any other deprivation cased by Rob’s loss of liberty. They should seek to recover both nominal and punitive damages. The nominal damages would be a just and fair compensation for the harm they suffered. The intentional confinement of Rob Jr. involved malice and ill will since the Church of the Divine Light demanded money from his parents.
They are entitled to punitive damages to compensate them for their loss and to punish the Church of the Divine Light due to its malicious intentions. The only defense that can be raised by the Church of the Divine light is that Rob Jr. voluntarily consented to the confinement. The defense would fail since in the State of California, a minor under the age of eighteen years does not have the capacity to consent.
ISSUE 2: TORT OF FRAUD BY INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
Rob and Bunny Sherman have a course of action against the Church of the Divine Light for the tort of fraud by intentional misrepresentation.
Rule of Law
Under § 1572 of the California civil code, the tort of fraud by intentional misrepresentation has six major elements (Stein, 2008). The six element s are: the representation must be about an existing or past material fact; the representation has to be false; the defendant must have had the knowledge that the representation was false when making or must have made it recklessly without any regard to whether it was false or true; the defendant must have made the representation with the intention of defrauding the plaintiff; or with the intention of inducing the plaintiff to act on its reliance; the plaintiff must have not been aware about the falsity of the representation and must have acted in belief of the truth of the representation; and the plaintiff must have sustained damage as a result of relying on the false representation (Michaud, 2010).
Analysis:
For the Shermans to succeed in their claim, they must prove that all the elements of the tort of fraud by intentional misrepresentation were present. They must, therefore, prove that the Church of the Divine Light made a representation that a substantial fact was true; that the representation made by the Church was false; that when the representation was made the church knew that it was false, or that Tom Marsden made it recklessly without considering whether it was true; that the purpose of the Church of the Divine Light was to make Rob's parents act on the representation; that the parents substantially relied in the representation made by the Church of the Divine Light; that the Shermans suffered harm as a result of relying on the representation, and that the reliance on the representation was an important factor in causing the damage suffered by the Shermans.
In this case, the Shermans have a high probability of success in pursuing their claim against the church. The church used Rob Jr. to receive money from the Shermans. The Church told Rob Jr. to demand money from his parents to cater for his upkeep. His parents sent the money because they relied on the representation that their son intended to stay with the Church as he had found a “new family”. The Church coerced Rob Jr. into writing the letter knowing very well that the information was false. It was the intention of the Church to get money from Rob’s parents. Since the Shermans paid the money, they suffered monetary loss as a result of relying on the false information given by the church.
Conclusion:
Rob Sr. and Bunny Sherman should file an action against the Church of the Divine light for the tort of fraud by intentional misrepresentation. Since the tort is intentional, they should file an action for punitive damages. Under universally accepted principles of tort law, victims of the tort of deceit or fraud are entitled to recover damages for all the proximate and natural losses caused by the fraud. They should, therefore, recover all the money they paid to the Church during the six months, and additional punitive damages to reprimand the church for its malicious conduct. The church can be expected to raise the defense that the demand for the money was not a material fact.
ISSUE 3: TORT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The Shermans can institute an action for the tort of intentional infliction of Emotional Distress against the Church of the Divine Light.
Rule of Law
§ 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts stipulate that the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress has three major elements. They include: the defendant’s actions must be intentional or recklessly; the conduct of the defendant must be outrageous and extreme, and the conduct of the defendant must cause extreme emotional distress (Batten & Gale Group, 2011).
Analysis
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was committed on both Rob Jr. and his parents. The church inflicted severe emotional distress on Rob Jr. by separating him from his parents without any substantial consent. The church inflicted chronic emotional distress on Rob Sr. and Bunny Sherman by causing them to believe that their son had abandoned them, and chosen to live with a “new family”. The church extended the emotional distress inflicted by making it progress for six months. The church achieved its objective by brainwashing Rob Jr. into thinking that if he left the church he would be thrown into the eternal fires of hell and would not be allowed back.
In the case of Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity 46 Cal.3d 1092 (1988) 46 Cal. 3d at 1092, the California Supreme Court ruled that churches and other religious organizations can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud for using deception and brainwashing techniques to recruit or control members (Rabin, 2009). The court held that it was its duty to protect non-consenting individuals from fraudulent induction or coercive persuasion. The definition of brainwashing was extended to encompass the application of identifiable and specific techniques whose purpose is to undermine the ability of an individual to reason, and impair the inherent capacity of an individual to form an independent consent. Such brainwashing causes the victim to exercise unconditional and indiscriminate obedience to the wishes and commands of the indoctrinator. Tom Marsden and other leaders of the Church of the Divine Light had inflicted emotional distress on Rob Jr. by using brainwashing techniques to impair his capacity to make independent decisions.
Conclusion
The Shermans should file an action for the recovery of punitive and compensatory damages from the Church of the Divine Light. This is because the church intentionally caused extreme emotional distress on Rob Jr. and his parents through brainwashing him. The church can be expected to raise the defense of privileged conduct provided for by §1605 of the California Jury Instructions.
References
Batten, D., & Gale Group. (2011). Gale encyclopedia of American law. Detroit, Mich: Gale.
Diamond, L., Levine, C., & Bernstein, A. (2010). Understanding torts. Retrieved From: http://www.contentreserve.com/TitleInfo.asp?ID={2019348D-D307-4E5C-A593- 50B5E151B238}&Format=410.
Michaud, J. (2010). Paralegal studies: Torts. New York, Pearson Learning Solutions.
Rabin, R. (2009). Emotional Distress in Tort Law: Themes of Constraint. Wake Forest Law Review, 40: 1197-1209.
Stein, M. (2008). California elements of an action. Eagan, Minn.: Thomson Reuters / West.
