Case demonstrates the difficulty of proving negligence claims for injuries caused by “open and obvious” hazards unless concealed by a distraction such as darkness.
Negligent supervision claims are not premised on notice of a worker’s misconduct or the potential for it. Liability is based on a duty to supervise that . . . exists independently of what was known or should have been known about the worker himself.
Sexual misconduct exclusions in church insurance policies may apply even though a church is being sued on the basis of vicarious liability, negligence, or some other form of "indirect" liability.
Case illustrates the importance of "foreseeability" in finding a school or church liable on the basis of negligent supervision for acts of child molestation.