Are Michael Jackson’s Corporations Liable for His Sexual Abuse of Young Boys

            Our case today is about two men in their thirties who separately sued Michael Jackson and his corporations for sexual abuse Jackson perpetrated on them when they were young boys. Their lawsuits, filed many years after the egregious acts, were found timely because the statute of limitations deadline to sue for sexual abuse was extended by the Legislature.

THE ISSUE

            The issue in this case was whether Jackson’s corporations, which held most of his assets including his music copywrites, were liable, along with Jackson, for his disgusting abuse of these boys.

            You may be wondering, as did I, why Jackson’s two corporations, which he solely owned, wouldn’t automatically be liable for his sickening acts. Here is the answer.

JACKSON ABUSES YOUNG BOYS OVER MANY YEARS

            For many years Michael Jackson coddled, flattered and gave his affections to plaintiffs James Safechuck and separately to Wade Robson. The sexual molestation started when Safechuck was 9 and Robson 7. In hindsight, the young boys’ parents were extremely naïve and/or negligent leaving their sons with Jackson although they claimed in testimony to have trusted Jackson.

            The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles wrote exhaustively about how much Jackson’s corporate employees knew about what was going on. A lot. Clearly the employees looked the other way, if not, facilitated interactions between the boys and Jackson. Does that make the corporations with their ample assets liable to the boys and their families?

            The corporations MJJ Productions, Inc. and MJJ Ventures, Inc., argued they were not responsible, “because they had no ability to control Jackson – their sole owner – or his interactions with plaintiffs. Parties cannot be liable for neglecting to exercise powers they simply do not have.” Wow.

The trial court ruled for the corporations writing, “Since defendants [the corporations] have no ability to control Jackson regarding his alleged sexual abuse of Plaintiff(s), there is no legal duty of care between the parties and the negligence causes of action fail as a matter of law.” Apparently, that’s basic corporate law.

COURT OF APPEAL RULING

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the general law but could not find itself to let the corporations off the hook. The court wrote “it would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder….the circumstances here created a “special relationship” that gave rise to an affirmative duty of the corporations to protect the minor plaintiffs from sexual abuse the corporations knew or suspected was occurring…Jackson did not meet the plaintiffs “incidentally”; Jackson did not unwittingly “stumble upon” them. Defendant’s corporations employed both Jackson and the minor plaintiffs and made the arrangements for Jackson to be alone with them.”

“To treat Jackson’s wholly – owned instruments[corporations] as different from Jackson himself is to be mesmerized by abstractions” wrote the concurring justice.

I couldn’t agree more.

            Jim Porter is a retired attorney from the Porter Simon law firm. These are Jim’s personal opinions. Porter Simon has offices in Truckee, California and Reno, Nevada. Porter Simon’s practice areas include:  real estate, development, construction, business, HOA’s, contracts, family law, personal injury, accidents, mediation and other transactional matters. Jim may be reached at jameslporterjr@gmail.com. Like us on Facebook. ©2023