In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Hardwicke v. American Boychoir School that private organizations can be held liable for sexual abuse by employees. The Court said this applies when the institution acts in place of a parent. The Boychoir School met this standard because it controlled students’ meals, sleep, clothing, and daily routines.

The Victim in the Case

From fall 1969 to April 1971, John W. Hardwicke attended the American Boychoir School in Princeton, New Jersey as a boarding student. He was just twelve years old when he enrolled. In 2001, at age 43, Hardwicke sued Musical Director Donald Hanson, the American Boychoir School, and several affiliated individuals. He alleged that Hanson and others repeatedly sexually abused him while he was a student. He also claimed that the school knew or should have known about the abuse but failed to intervene.

Legal Context for NJ Institutions

Hardwicke affirmed that a boarding institution even with statutory immunity for negligence can be held accountable under New Jersey’s Child Sexual Abuse Act if it knowingly entrusts a child to an abuser and fails to act.

The decision drew on principles from Frugis and J.S. v. R.T.H., which underscored an institution’s heightened duty to safeguard children’s bodily integrity.

Under the Child Sex Abuse Act (CSAA), two types of abusers exist, active abusers and passive abusers. Hardwick v. American Boychoir School, 902 A.2d 900, 910 (N.J. 2006).  Active abusers inflict the actual abuse, and passive abusers are “those persons who stand in loco parentis within the household who know of the abuse and who fail to protect the child. Id. 

So, there are three elements needed to show a passive abuser under the CSAA; 

• A person
• standing in loco parentis 
• within the household. Id. at 911. 

The Determination for NJ Institutions

The court ruled that the American Boychoir School qualifies as a “person” under the New Jersey Child Sexual Abuse Act (CSAA). It based this decision on statutory language, legislative intent to expand liability, and prior case law treating organizations as legal persons. The court also noted that if state agencies can serve as guardians, then limiting “person” to natural individuals does not hold.

The court next found that the school acted in loco parentis, as it controlled nearly every aspect of students’ lives from hygiene and money to discipline and religious practices.

Finally, the court determined the school qualified as a “household” under the CSAA, explaining that household status depends on shared living conditions, not familial ties. Because the school functioned as both a home and educational institution, it met this requirement.

Meeting all three criteria, the court concluded the school was a passive abuser under the CSAA.

Influential Cases

Hardwicke introduced the “aided‐by‐agency” doctrine (Restatement §219(2)(d)), previously recognized in England, including the landmark Lister v Hesley Hall case expanding vicarious liability for intentional torts when the role enabled abuse.

The court discusses its application of Restatement §219(2)(d) to the case Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., A.2d 445 (1993). Id. at 919. 

The doctrine can hold an employer vicariously liable if an employer delegated the authority to control the work environment to a supervisor and the supervisor abused the delegated authority. Id. at 920. 

This doctrine requires 4 determinations of fact: 

1. The employer gave the authority to the supervisor to control the situation about which the plaintiff complains; 
2. The supervisor exercised that authority; 
3. The exercise of authority resulted in a violation of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD); and
4. The authority delegated by the employer to the supervisor aided the supervisor in injuring the plaintiff. Id. 

Shortly after, the Court extended the Lehmann holding to lawsuits brought under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) in the case Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 650 A.2d 958 (1994). Id. 

The court explained that both LAD and CEPA enforce important public policy in that they both seek to overcome employee victimization and protect vulnerable employees in the workplace. Id. 

Applied to Hardwicke, the court explained that their analysis in both Lehmann and Abbamont apply to claims arising from child abuse. Id.

The CSAA enforces the same public policy in that it recognizes that children are vulnerable and illustrates the legislative intent to protect children. Id. 

So, the rationale from Lehmann and Abbamont applies here; “the CSAA imposes a responsibility on those in the best position to know of the abuse and stop it; application of section 219 of the Restatement to Plaintiff’s common-law claims advances these goals.” Id. 

Why This Matters for All Child Abuse Victims

• Institutions with parental control schools, camps, foster homes, religious organizations can be held accountable when staff abuse children.
• New Jersey’s 2019 amendments removed immunity against sexual misconduct for public entities, reinforcing Hardwicke’s broader application logic. 
• Survivors in other states now have a critical precedent to push similar liability standards, demanding accountability from institutions that set the stage for abuse.

How Andreozzi + Foote Can Help

At Andreozzi + Foote, we specialize in exposing and litigating institutional failures that enable child abuse. Our approach includes:

1. Investigating “in loco parentis” roles identifying how the institution governed daily life, authority structures, and care responsibilities.
2. Proving “aided‐by‐agency” link showing how the institution’s systems and staffing models facilitated the abuse.
3. Pushing legal boundaries using cutting-edge statutes and case law to hold boards, non-profits, camps, and religious bodies accountable.

Our team has successfully argued these complex legal theories to recover justice and damages for survivors—turning Hardwicke’s legal precedent into real-world victories.

The Hardwicke ruling empowers survivors and families by demonstrating that institutions not just perpetrators can be held culpable for the sexual abuse of children under their care. If your child was harmed at a boarding school, child care setting, camp, or any organization that assumed parental responsibilities, you deserve a legal team that understands how to leverage this landmark decision.

Andreozzi + Foote brings the expertise, compassion, and courtroom experience to achieve accountability and healing.