of Mr. Bibby abusing their daughter again. Specifically, she testified she placed a lock on their daughter’s door after Mr. Bibby returned and hid the key from him. The majority cites to cases in which our courts have found a special relationship existed but concludes this case is distinguishable because the abuse occurred inside Respondent’s home as opposed to a commercial setting. I believe the location is not dispositive for purposes of creating a special relationship. Rather, I would find Wife’s act of voluntarily inviting minor Appellants into her home while knowing of Husband’s prior sexual abuse and continuing sexually deviant propensities is sufficient to impose a duty in this instance. See, e.g., Pamela L. v. Farmer, 112 Cal.App.3d 206, 169 Cal.Rptr. 282 (Cal.Ct.App.1980) (<HOLDING>); J.S. v. R.T.H., 155 N.J. 330, 714 A.2d 924
holding wife unreasonably exposed neighbors children to danger because she invited the children over in spite of knowing her husband had molested children in the past holding that a wife who invited and encouraged children to visit her premises even though she knew that husband had molested women and children in the past and might do so again could be held liable in negligence holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children holding that kellyfrye precludes the introduction of generalized syndrome testimony during the states caseinchief for the purpose of demonstrating that the particular child had been abused in that the experts knew of no studies comparing the reactions of children known to be molested with those who claim to be molested or those who were not molested 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