 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Diocese of Winona11/30/2004
been abused and that the abuse was wrong. The court also determined that appellant's fraudulent concealment claim was barred under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6). The court held that appellant knew or should have known of any alleged fraud by 1986, when he attended a related civil trial, or at the latest, by 1994 when appellant received the letter from Bishop Vlazny apologizing for the abuse.
DECISION
On review of summary judgment, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was rendered. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). The court determines whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). The interpretation of a statute and the determination of whether a genuine issue of material fact exists are subject to de novo review. Brookfield Trade Ctr. v. Ramsey County, 609 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Minn. 2000).
1. Disability
"An action for damages based on personal injury caused by sexual abuse must be commenced within six years of the time the plaintiff knew or had reason to know that the injury was caused by the sexual abuse." Minn. Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2(a). Knowledge of the abuse is determined by applying an objective, reasonable-person standard. Blackowiak v. Kemp, 546 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Minn. 1996). The statute of limitations on sexual abuse claims begins to run when a victim is abused, "unless there is some legal disability, such as a victim's age, or mental disability... which would make a reasonable person incapable of recognizing or understanding that he or she had been sexually abused." W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677, 681 (Minn. 1998).
In Bugge, when defining "disability," the court refused to recognize the significance of a delayed understanding as to the way or ways in which harm has been suffered as a result of known abuse. Id. at 682. Thus, the Bugge court rejected the significance of the plaintiff's claim that she chose not to think about the abuse for a number of years and her claim of a recent understanding of the nature of the abuse and the harm it had done. Id. The claim of current understanding contradicts not only the court's reliance on knowledge that prompts the running of the statute but also the court's statement that the disability is measured not by the victim's understanding of the injury but by the more generic question of whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have known he or she had been sexually abused. See id.
Appellant points to the supreme court's observation that disabling coping mechanisms might include denial and shame. See D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383, 387 (Minn. 2002) (stating that psychological coping mechanisms often prevent abuse victims from commencing legal action within normal period of limitation for negligence or battery actions); see also Bugge, 573 N.W.2d at 680 n.5 (acknowledging that repressed memory, denial, shame and other similar factors may prevent sexual abuse victims from coming forward with actions against their alleged abusers in a timely fashion). In support of his claim that he did not realize until 2002 that he had been affected by the sexual abuse, appellant introduced evidence indicating that he chose through the years to accept what had happened in the past because of factors of denial and shame. But appellant claims only that denial and shame prompted his choices; he makes no claim that his state of mind impaired his knowledge as to the occurrence of the abuse. As the district court determined here, the record clearly shows that appellant knew since at least 1994 th
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.
|
|