I have a question wrote:Bishop Leavitt was an appointed officer of The Church. Therefore The Church knew. That he didn’t pass it upstairs (allegedly) is an organisational failing, which doesn’t excuse the Church from culpability (imho) for failing to act and for failing to protect others.
I also think, if that is the case, then perhaps Ron Leavitt should be open for being sued in a civil case. He had a duty of care which he failed to fulfil.
It's not the same, but somewhat analogous to a sexual harassment in the workplace. If an employee reports to an immediate supervisor, the employer will generally be deemed to be on notice of the allegations, regardless of whether the supervisor reported it up the line and even if the supervisor was a low-level supervisor. So if the employer fails to take immediate action because the supervisor didn't report, the employer can still be held liable, at least for continuing harassment.
Likewise, if a supervisor is the person who engaged in the harassment, the employer likely will be strictly liable*, as the employee will be the party deemed to have engaged in the harassment. Is Bishop analogous to a supervisor?
*There may be an affirmative defense to strict liability.
With regard to a supervisor who fails to act, the supervisor generally cannot be held liable individually. (There's current legislation pending that would change California law on that point.) So if the analogy holds, Leavitt is probably not open to civil liability, regardless of the statute of limitations.