liability as “the paucity of the record ma[de] it impossible ... to determine the merits of [the victims’] argument.” Id. at 323, 548 S.E.2d at 858 he time lapse since Mr. Bibby had molested their daughter, the passage of time alone should not negate the possibility that Respondent knew or should have known of Mr. Bibby’s sexually deviant proclivities. Respondent knew minor Appellants were coming over to their house to play and minor Appellants’ presence in their home was a result of her own invitation. Further, Respondent admitted she was aware of Mr. Bibby’s prior propensities for pedophilia, as she acknowledged Mr. Bibby sexually abused their daughter in the past. Even after Mr. Bibby was removed from their home and placed in counseling, Respondent clearly appreciated the possi 8) (<HOLDING>); Doe v. Franklin, 930 S.W.2d 921
holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted holding that the deceased defendant trustees wife was a representative of her husbands estate and a proper party for substitution purposes where the wife was the primary distributee of her deceased husbands estate holding that a wife could be held liable for the negligent failure to prevent or warn the victims about her husbands sexually abusive behavior when the wife had actual knowledge or special reason to know that the husband was likely to abuse a particular person or persons holding that a wife is not liable simply by virtue of the marital relationship for her husbands fraudulent acts recognizing that husband and wife count as separate victims where each sustains part of the actual loss