 |
 |
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
ould not be rewarded by the protection of the statute of limitations when he did something so outrageous that Watson did not want to remember it. Fundamental policy behind statutes of limitation does not, however, equate a plaintiff who deliberately avoids a memory to a plaintiff who is in a "blamelessly uninformed" state. Doe, 191 Ariz. at 322, 330 29, 55, 955 P.2d at 960, 968 (statutes of limitations protect against stale claims where plaintiffs have slept on their rights). Our supreme court has determined that tolling the statute of limitations is an appropriate policy for those whose memories are "inaccessible" but, a fortiori, not for those who can remember. Id. at 324, 37, 955 P.2d at 962. Having found, as a matter of fact, that Watson was in the latter category, the trial court was legally compelled to find that the statute had not been tolled. Weight of the Evidence Relative to Dissociative Amnesia
Watson argues that the trial court's rejection of Watson's claim of dissociative amnesia is against the "clear weight of the evidence" and must be overturned. The specific finding attacked by Watson is that Bredemann's sexual contact with Watson was minimal.
The trial court cited to the non-violent and short-lived nature of the sexual contact between Watson and Bredemann as one factor in reaching its ultimate conclusion that Watson did not suffer from repressed memory:
[Watson] was approximately 12 years old when the recalled event took place. The event, while sexual was non-violent and short lived. While [Watson] clearly felt embarrassment or even humiliation, he was not the victim of a violent or repetitive trauma. His embarrassment, coupled with the fact that he had not suffered any violent or significant sexual abuse or physical injury , and had been raised in an observant Catholic family where priests were god-like, would cause him, as a young teenager to want to cognitively avoid recollection of this sad and unexpected event.
Watson argues that the trial court's assessment of the contact with Bredemann was the "crux" of the finding that Watson did not suffer from dissociative amnesia and was not justified by the record. He attempts to persuade us the weight of the evidence showed that Bredemann committed anal rape upon Watson and thus the event was "per se" violent.
Our duty on review is not, however, to reweigh the evidence or redetermine the preponderance of evidence. See Estate of Pouser, 193 Ariz. at 579, 13, 975 P.2d at 709. We are bound by this finding unless it is clearly erroneous, giving "due regard . . . to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 52(a). We defer to the trial court's determination of the weight to give conflicting evidence. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 347-48, 13, 972 P.2d 676, 680-81 (App. 1998).
As evidence of anal penetration, Watson cites his recollection that, after Bredemann abruptly returned to his own sleeping bag, Watson remembered an aching in his anus. Watson also notes that he later described the event to others as being "raped" or "fucked" by a priest. He argues that these circumstances demonstrate that anal penetration must have occurred but that he continues to repress that part of his memory.
The evidence supporting the trial court's finding of non-violent contact includes Watson's own testimony. Watson specifically denied any memory of anal contact or penetration by Bredemann's penis and reported no residual physical evidence of such an act. As appellees point out, if Bredemann had attempted penetration, something Watson testified he had never experienced before, it is likely that Watson would ha
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.
|
|