 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Archdiocese of Washington2/26/1997
Opinion by Hollander, J.
This case concerns the timeliness of a suit instituted by appellant, John Doe, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. In 1995, seventeen years after reaching adulthood, Doe sued the Reverend Thomas Sebastian Schaefer, the Reverend Alphonsus Michael Smith, and the Archdiocese of Washington, appellees, because of the sexual child abuse that he suffered during the period 1972 through 1978, when Doe was between eleven and seventeen years of age. Based on the statute of limitations, the trial court granted appellees' motions to dismiss. Appellant has appealed and presents the following questions for our review, which we have rephrased.
I. Did the trial court correctly conclude that appellant's suit was time-barred, because his claims based on childhood sexual abuse accrued in 1978, when he reached the age of majority?
II. Did the trial court err in rejecting appellant's argument the statute of limitations was tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment?
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the court properly dismissed the suit. Therefore, we shall affirm.
Factual Background
Appellant served as an altar boy at the Church of St. Matthias in Lanham, Maryland beginning in 1972, when he was 11 years old. Between 1972 and 1978, at least two priests sexually abused appellant. This appeal involves sexual abuse by Schaefer, who served as pastor at St. Matthias from 1972 through 1975, and Smith, who served as pastor there beginning in 1975. The priests gained appellant's trust by giving him money and gifts, and then repeatedly molested him. In addition, Schaefer used pornographic material while engaging in sexual acts with appellant, and also took pornographic photographs of him.
According to the allegations, when the Archdiocese learned in 1967 that Schaefer was a pedophile, he was required to undergo treatment. Subsequently, the Church placed him at Saint Francis de Sales Parish in Washington, D.C. in 1971, and later transferred him to St. Matthias in 1972. Appellant did not allege that the Archdiocese knew that Smith was a pedophile.
Appellant asserted that, when his marriage "fell apart" in 1994, he first became aware that he was injured as a result of the sexual child abuse committed by the priests. As a result, in July 1995, appellant filed suit against the priests for battery, negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy. He asserted several claims against the Archdiocese: negligence; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent failure to warn; conspiracy; and negligent hiring, placement, and supervision.
Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. The circuit court granted the motion, adopting appellees' arguments. Ruling from the bench, the court (Perry, J.) noted that Maryland uses the discovery rule, rather than the maturation of harm rule, to determine the accrual of a cause of action for purposes of the statute of limitations. The judge stated that "the Court sees no conceivable way that a person couldn't be cognizant of an actionable injury [,] where something like this occurred[,] for a period of seventeen years." Because appellant reached the age of majority in 1978, she held that the statute of limitations barred all of appellant's claims no later than some time in 1981.
Discussion
I.
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court must decide whether the complaint states a claim, assuming the truth of all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and taking all inferences from those facts in the light most favorabl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|