Legal News

Britney Bodyguard Sues Over Witnessing Child Abuse

By Matthew Heller, Editor

A former bodyguard for Britney Spears who says he saw her ?savagely? beat her elder son with a belt is pushing the legal envelope by suing her based on his observation of her allegedly outrageous behavior.

Britney Spears with sons Sean Preston (left) and Jayden

Courts have allowed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a few cases where the observer of ?extreme and outrageous conduct? was a family member of the target of the conduct. Plaintiffs have included a child who saw her father physically abuse her mother.

?[A] close family member [may] recover damages for emotional distress arising from the outrageous conduct inflicted on another family member,? the West Virginia Supreme Court said in Courtney v. Courtney, 413 S.E.2d 418 (1991).

Fernando Flores' suit against Spears ? which also includes lurid allegations of sexual harassment and exhibitionism ? presents the novel issue of whether the emotional distress tort stretches as far as an observer of physical abuse who is not related to the victim.

?Defendant Spears on a number of occasions perpetrated extreme and outrageous conduct including but not limited to conduct against her two minor children, in the presence of Plaintiff, directed at Plaintiff and with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress to Plaintiff,? Flores says in a complaint filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Spears' ex-husband Kevin Federline has legal custody of their sons Sean Preston, 5, and Jayden James, 4, but the former couple spend roughly equal time with the children. In 2007, another former bodyguard claimed to have witnessed Spears abuse drugs and alcohol and that she neglected the children to the point of putting them at serious physical risk.

According to Flores, who began working for Spears in February, her parenting skills have not improved much. On one occasion, he alleges, he was in Spears' pool house when she came in and demanded that he remove his belt and give it to her.

?What happened next horrified and deeply disturbed Plaintiff,? the suit says. ?... Plaintiff exited the pool house, hearing Sean Preston screaming in terror and pain, and saw Defendant Spears at least twice savagely hitting the small child with Plaintiff's belt.?

Flores also says he saw Spears ?deliberately and recklessly feed her two sons crabmeat? at a West Hollywood hotel, resulting in both of the boys vomiting, even though she knew that they had ?serious and even life threatening food allergies to seafood.? When Flores admonished her, Spears ?forcefully replied, 'Mind your own fucking business!'?

In a statement on her website, Spears said the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services "conducted a proper investigation surrounding Mr. Flores' accusations and have closed the case without any further action. Ms. Spears and her attorneys have every expectation that this matter will be dismissed by the courts."

As far as a bystander recovering damages for observing abuse, the Nevada Supreme Court has noted, ?There is very little case law relating to recovery based on the mere observation of outrageous acts aimed at third parties. In instances where recovery has been allowed, the observed conduct has been outrageous in the extreme.? Star v. Rabello, 625 P. 2d 90 (1981).

In a California child molestation case, state Supreme Court Justice John A. Arguelles said the emotional distress tort,

although recognized and applicable to a broad range of acts, is less frequently invoked to permit recovery for the emotional distress suffered by one not the immediate target of the defendant's conduct. Recovery has in general been limited, and the tort has ever narrowing parameters depending upon the potential plaintiff. Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, 770 P.2d 278 (1989).

Flores says his relationship with Sean Preston and Jayden ?became so close that Plaintiff was told by the children that they loved him.? And Spears' alleged conduct toward her sons, if true, might well fit the term ?outrageous in the extreme.?

But the former bodyguard does not explain how the conduct was ?directed? at him and however close he may have been to the children, that may not be enough to fit his claim within the ?narrowing parameters? of the emotional distress tort in the absence of a blood tie to them.

By Matthew Heller
On Point

Full post as published by On Point News on September 15, 2010 (boomark / email).