 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ault v. Jasko8/31/1994
ule in a number of contexts including medical malpractice, legal malpractice, bodily injury caused by exposure to asbestos, DES-related injuries, and injuries arising out of the negligence of a hospital in credentialing a physician. See Doe, supra, 68 Ohio St.3d at 538, 629 N.E.2d at 408.
While we have not previously addressed the application of the discovery rule in the context of the present case, the trend in other jurisdictions is to apply the discovery rule where repression of the sexual abuse has prevented the plaintiff from filing a claim within the applicable statutory limitations period. Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609, 265 Cal.Rptr. 605; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257, 418 N.W.2d 23; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195, 576 A.2d 316; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174, 427 N.W.2d 606; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907.
In Osland,, 442 N.W.2d 907, the North Dakota Supreme Court applied the discovery rule to a case brought by a twenty-two-year-old plaintiff against her father for sexual abuse that occurred when the plaintiff was between the ages of ten and fifteen. The court recognized] that plaintiff experienced "severe emotional trauma" that "resulted in her being unable to fully understand or discover her cause of action during the applicable statutory limitations period." Id., 442 N.W.2d at 909.
Likewise, in Evans, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at 1616, 265 Cal.Rpt. at 609, the court applied the discovery rule to an action based on a parent's sexual abuse of plaintiffs as children. The court stated the following in support of its decision:
"It has been widely recognized that the shock and confusion engendered by parental molestation, together with the parent's demands for secrecy, may lead a child to deny or block the traumatic events from conscious memory, or to turn the anger and pain inward so that the child blames himself or herself for the events." Id. at 1615, 265 Cal.Rptr. at 608, citing Comment, Adult Incest Survivors and thsStatute of Limitations: The Delayed Discovery Rule and Long-Term Damages (1985), 25 Santa Clara L.Rev. 191, 192-195.
Finally, the Supreme Court of Iowa in Callahan, supra, 464 N.W.2d at 271-272, discussed the reasoning behind applying the discovery rule in such cases as follows:
"There is a phenomenon among sex abuse victims, sometimes referred to as `Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,' which causes victims to repress information regarding the abuse * * *.
"* * * This repression syndrome, together with other considerations of fairness, have prompted courts to apply the discovery rule liberally in child sex abuse cases."
This court has recognized the unique character of child sex abuse cases and the need to toll the statute of limitations in State v. Hensley (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 136, 571 N.E.2d 711.This court held that for the purposes of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions, "the corpus delecti of crimes involving child abuse or neglect is discovered when a responsible adult, as listed in R.C. 2151.421, has knowledge of both the act and the criminal nature of the act." Id. at syllabus. In formulating this holding, we recognized the problems of "internalization" for child victims and the fact that "the mental and emotional anguish that the victims suffer frequently inhibits their ability to speak freely of the episodes of abuse." Id. at 138-139, 571 N.E.2d at 714.
In the present case, defendant argues that application of the discovery rule to this type of case is unfair to defendants in light of the lack of end
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|