 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watson v. Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Phoenix2/13/2003
ich he did. Watson's father's best recollection of what he was told by Watson was that Watson was with a group of friends discussing the Simpson trial when the memory came back. Watson's father recalled Watson's mother explaining to him that night, after she had talked to Watson, that Watson had been at a party with "wild behavior" and that Watson had made the revelation during this party that he had been raped by a priest. From later conversations with Watson, his father remembered learning about Jenson, a group of friends, and a wild party. Watson told his parents that he had not revealed the molestation to them before because he was afraid it would hurt their faith.
Watson consulted with counsel shortly after telling his family, and this action was filed September 26, 1997.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Watson presents three issues for review, all of which challenge aspects of the trial court's factual findings. This court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly contrary to the evidence. Polk v. Koerner, 111 Ariz. 493, 494, 533 P.2d 660, 661 (1975). If the judgment can be supported by the evidence, we must affirm it. Id. We "examine the record only to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the trial court's action. Substantial evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court's result." In re Estate of Pouser, 193 Ariz. 574, 579, 13, 975 P.2d 704, 709 (1999) (citation omitted); accord SAL Leasing , Inc. v. State ex rel. Napolitano, 198 Ariz. 434, 438, 13, 10 P.3d 1221, 1225 (App. 2000). In addition to express findings made by the trial court, we imply "any additional finding that is necessary to sustain the judgment, if reasonably supported by the evidence, and not in conflict with the express findings." Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome's Dep't Store, 129 Ariz. 137, 139, 629 P.2d 553, 555 (App. 1981). In matters involving the trial court's legal conclusions, our review is de novo. SAL Leasing, Inc., 198 Ariz. at 438-39, 13, 10 P.3d at 1225-26.
Alleged Error Relative to Finding of Cognitive Avoidance
The essence of Watson's argument on this issue is that the trial court erred by finding that Watson's "cognitive avoidance" of the Bredemann molestation did not toll the statute of limitations. According to Watson, cognitive avoidance is equivalent to dissociative amnesia for purposes of tolling under Arizona law because both are forms of memory loss. Watson puts the argument as follows:
The trial court . . . found that [Watson's] memory loss was conscious and deliberate: he wanted to put it out of his mind. This is known as cognitive avoidance. The trial court erroneously held that [Watson's] memory loss did not toll the statute of limitations because it did not result from involuntary repression of memory. (Emphasis added.)
Watson also argues the trial court adopted Illinois law to hold, contrary to Arizona law, that loss of memory due to cognitive avoidance is not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. In support of his argument, Watson cites various portions of the trial court's findings to establish that the trial court never expressly found that Watson was able to remember the events with Bredemann. Thus, he reasons, the trial court found that Watson experienced actual memory loss and that a memory loss, whatever the reason, tolls the statute of limitations.
Watson's argument is based upon an incorrect premise; namely, that the trial court found Watson suffered a loss of memory. To the contrary, the trial court's findings repeatedly deny this:
This Court believes that [Watson's] memory of the events in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|