Advertisement

Jury Clears Hospital in Boy’s Molestation

Share
Times Staff Writer

A Harbor Gateway convalescent hospital was not to blame for a 1984 incident in which a schizophrenic patient allegedly molested a 6-year-old boy who had come to the hospital for a Sunday prayer service, a Van Nuys Superior Court jury found this week.

While jurors said Monday that Harbor Convalescent Hospital was negligent in permitting the youngster to wander unattended down its hallways, they also found that the negligence was not directly to blame for the confrontation with the mentally disturbed patient or for the severe psychological trauma that the youngster, now 12, has reportedly suffered.

Several jurors said after the verdict that they believed Faith of Our Fathers Church in Torrance and two church members were responsible for the boy’s welfare. The jurors also said they vindicated the hospital because they believed witnesses who testified that the boy had psychological problems before the incident.

Advertisement

Emotional Trial

The verdict was reached after an emotional seven-week trial and four days of deliberations.

Ray Moore, a lawyer for the hospital, praised the verdict. But the 39-year-old mother who filed the lawsuit five years ago on behalf of her son said the result was “unbelievable” and “unacceptable.”

The mother said she was not concerned with winning a large cash settlement but rather in receiving a verdict affirming the hospital’s responsibility. “My son was violated and there was no justice,” she said.

But the mother and son, who now live in Huntington Beach, will not walk away without compensation.

Midway through the trial, the church was dropped as a defendant when it agreed to pay a $1-million settlement without admitting that it was liable for the boy’s injuries. The mother said that at least $350,000 of the settlement will go to her attorney, Richard Farnell, and to cover court costs.

Jurors said the eleventh-hour settlement may have saved the church, now called the Living Word Fellowship, from an even larger loss.

Advertisement

Church Cited

“Too bad the church settled, because we would have nailed the church,” said jury foreman Linda De Silva. “The church had no credibility to us. . . . It was definitely the church that caused all of this,” she said. “They were definitely responsible.”

Before the settlement, church lawyer Tony Serritella had argued that the Torrance congregation could not be held liable because the hospital prayer meeting was the personal ministry of two parishioners and not a church-sanctioned event.

Jurors had heard testimony that the 6-year-old became restless halfway through the prayer meeting on Jan. 22, 1984, and wandered down a hospital corridor where Alfred Ray Hatch--a toothless, bearded man with open sores on his legs--lured him into a treatment room.

A Sheriff’s Department report says Hatch admitted that he molested the boy and forced the boy to perform sex acts on him. Hatch was charged with oral copulation and performing lewd acts with a child but did not have to stand trial because he was declared incompetent and was committed to a state mental hospital.

Suicide Attempts

The boy’s attorney, Farnell, had argued that the hospital was liable for the attack because it failed to properly supervise Hatch or the boy. The boy’s mother testified that in the past five years, he has been depressed and anxious and has tried to commit suicide 10 times.

Moore countered that the hospital provided as much security as it could without turning the hospital into a prison. He also attempted to show that the boy had psychological problems before his encounter with Hatch and that his mother impeded his recovery by not following medication and therapy instructions.

Advertisement

Moore’s arguments and the jury’s own focus of blame on the church led to the victory for the hospital, the jurors said.

“It was unanimous that the boy was injured and that it was a criminal assault,” said one juror, who asked not to be named. “The church should have kept track of the boy. That was their responsibility.”

Farnell said he has not yet decided whether to file an appeal.

Advertisement