 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Diocese of Winona11/30/2004
at he had been abused and that he had no material disability that prevented this knowledge. Despite his undisputed knowledge of the abuse, appellant waited until 2003 to bring his claim.
Appellant argues that the more recent sexual abuse cases have moved away from singular attention to evidence of knowledge of injury and more openness to feelings that otherwise prevent sexual abuse victims from coming forward. See Barber, 645 N.W.2d at 387. But Barber was a case where the court was called upon to determine whether infancy tolled the six-year statute of limitations period. Id. at 390. The decision did nothing to alter the analysis of the prior caselaw on other disabling factors. See id.
Finally, appellant contends that Blackowiak improperly and restrictively applied the plain language of the delayed discovery statute - that the court judicially rewrote the statute by failing to apply the objective standard to determine when the victim had reason to know that his injuries were caused by the abuse. Appellant asserts that the result has been to strip most, if not all, of the victims of childhood sexual abuse of their statutory right to damages before they can even begin to understand that they have a claim. But this expressed grievance with the current law does not affect the decision of this court, which must apply the law as announced by the supreme court. The district court properly held that appellant's claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations period provided in Minn. Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2.
2. Fraud
Appellant also contends that the district court erred by concluding that his claim for fiduciary fraud was time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6). A six-year statute of limitations governs fraud claims, and the cause of action does not accrue until "the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud." Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd 1(6). When the fraud prevents the aggrieved party from learning of the claim, the six-year period does not begin to run until the party, acting with "reasonable diligence," should have discovered the facts underlying the fraud. Toombs v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 801, 809 (Minn. 1985). "Delay in discovering fraud may be excusable when a confidential relationship exists." Id.
When fraudulent concealment occurs during a fiduciary relationship, the plaintiff need not show affirmative acts of concealment as a prerequisite to tolling the statute of limitations because "fiduciary" imports a high degree of trust. Cohen v. Appert, 463 N.W.2d 787, 790 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Jan. 24, 1991). The doctrine tolls the limitations period until the concealment is or could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. Id. at 790-91. The party claiming fraudulent concealment has the burden of proving that concealment could not have been discovered sooner by reasonable diligence and was not the result of his or her own negligence. Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 450-51, 234 N.W.2d 775, 795 (1975).
Appellant argues that a fiduciary relationship existed between him and respondent because, as a member of the Adrian Catholic Church, appellant was an alter boy and attended weekly Mass. Appellant asserts that his parents were very devout Catholics who liked and trusted Adamson and that the amount of confidence and trust that appellant and his parents placed in Adamson resulted in a fiduciary relationship. Appellant contends that because of his fiduciary relationship with respondent, his claim of fraudulent concealment need not be based on any affirmative act on the part of respondent and may instead be based on respondent's alleged silence by failing to tell him about his potential
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.
|
|