 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Diocese of Winona11/30/2004
Appellant John Doe 76A initiated this suit against respondent Diocese of Winona with the claims based on the occurrence of sexual abuse between 1967 and 1969, when appellant was a teenager. Appellant disputes the district court's order for summary judgment that his action is defeated by the relevant statute of limitations, Minn. Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2(a) (2002). Appellant asserts that the running of the statute of limitations was tolled by his disability, and by respondent's breach of a fiduciary duty to disclose the history of an abusing priest. We affirm.
FACTS
Between 1958 and 1974, Father Thomas Adamson was employed by respondent at various times as a teacher and principal at parochial schools and as a priest at churches across southern Minnesota. During this time, Adamson was accused of engaging in or attempting to engage in sexual contact with minor boys. The record indicates that Adamson was frequently assigned to a new parish when new abuse allegations surfaced.
In approximately 1962, Adamson became associated with the Catholic parish at Adrian, Minnesota, as assistant pastor and coach. Appellant's family members were "very devout Catholics" and had frequent and friendly contact with Adamson. Appellant had almost weekly contact with the priest, and in approximately 1967, when appellant was approximately 13 years old, Adamson sexually abused appellant.
As a result of Adamson's sexual contact, appellant testified that he felt confused, scared, ashamed, and uncomfortable. In spite of attempts to avoid being alone with Adamson, the priest sexually abused appellant four more times over the course of the next two years. Appellant testified that he knew at all times that the sexual abuse was wrong and that it was one of the most wrongful things that had ever happened to him.
A few years after the sexual abuse occurred, appellant began discussing the abuse with a few close friends and family members. Sometime in 1986 or 1987, appellant discovered that Adamson had abused children in the Twin Cities area, and that one of the victims had sued the church. In response, appellant took two days off work to attend trial proceedings in the case. It was appellant's understanding that the church admitted wrongdoing at that time and that the victim received a monetary recovery as a result of the lawsuit. Appellant decided not to come forward with his own allegations of abuse against Adamson at that time for personal reasons.
In 1994, after his father passed away, appellant told his mother about the sexual abuse. Shortly thereafter, appellant's mother disclosed the information concerning Adamson's abuse of appellant to Bishop Vlazny. Bishop Vlazny subsequently sent appellant a letter dated March 18, 1994, apologizing for the abusive conduct and offering assistance to appellant if he so desired. Appellant declined the bishop's assistance because he "didn't trust him."
In February 2003, appellant filed suit against respondent asserting claims for negligence, sexual battery, fiduciary fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty as a result of the sexual abuse by Adamson. Respondent subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment contending that all of appellant's claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2 (2002). Respondent also asserted that appellant's claim of a fiduciary's fraudulent concealment was barred by the six-year limitation period for fraud claims under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6) (2002).
In February 2004, the district court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that appellant knew at all times since the abuse occurred that he had
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|