New lawsuit filed against Diocese of Winona & Cotter High School
Photo illustration: court gavel / MGN
(ABC 6 News) – A new personal injury lawsuit was filed in Olmsted County District Court against the Diocese of Winona and Cotter High School.
In the amended summons and complaint, the plaintiff, Doe 276, alleges that Tom Bork was teacher employed by the Diocese of Winona and Cotter High School at the time of the incident.
The incident took place from 1972 to 1973 when Doe 276 was between the ages of 15 and 16 years old and that Bork engaged in unpermitted sexual contact with Doe 276.
The summons state that Doe 276’s relationship to the Diocese of Winona, Cotter High School and Bork, as vulnerable child, student, and participant in school and church activities was subject to the ongoing influence of the Diocese of Winona, Cotter High School, and Bork, Doe 276 abuser.
The summons continues to refer to the culture of the Catholic Church over Doe 276 created pressure not to report Bork’s abuse.
It states that the Diocese of Winona and Cotter High School knew or should have known that Mr. Bork was danger to children before Bork sexually molested Doe 276.
Court documents state that the Diocese of Winona and Cotter High School negligently or recklessly believed that Bork was fit to work with children and/or that any previous problems he had were fixed and cured; that Bork would not sexually molest children and that Mr. Bork would not injure children; and/or that Bork would not hurt children.
Prior to the sexual abuse of Doe 276, the Diocese of Winona and Cotter High School learned or should have learned that Bork was not fit to work with children. The Diocese of Winona and Cotter High School knew or should have known that Bork was danger to children before Bork sexually molested Doe 276.
Three allegations that are brought forth by Doe 276 include negligence against all defendants, negligent supervision against all defendants and negligent retention against all defendants.
In the prayer for relief, Doe 276 demands judgment against Defendants, individually, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable.
The demand is made for a jury trial.
A case management conference hearing will be held on May 1.