 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ault v. Jasko8/31/1994
as recovered a repressed memory of sexual abuse. We merely find, taking the allegations of appellee's complaint as true, that the trial court erred in granting the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, because a discovery rule is appropriate in the proper case. Whether this is such a case is not a question before us at this time.
Paragraph two of the syllabus requires that upon remand, when this case proceeds beyond the allegations of the complaint, questions of fact will exist as to when the victim (appellee) "recall " or "otherwise discover " or "should have discovered" the alleged abuse. When those questions are answered, it will be possible for the trial judge to rule on the effect of the statute of limitations on appellee's claim. If appellee overcomes the statute of limitations obstacle, she will have an opportunity to prevail on the merits of her claim.
Since this case comes to us only on appellee's complaint, it would be pure speculation to give guidance to the trial court concerning standards to be applied to determine when appellee actually "recall " or "otherwise discover " or It should have discovered" the alleged abuse. Those standards will commence to be established in this case on remand, and will gradually evolve in other future cases. It is not possible at this time to establish workable standards which would govern all future cases.
I agree with the dissenting opinions that the General Assembly is the most appropriate body to establish a discovery rule in child sexual abuse cases. However, I believe that until the General Assembly chooses to act this court is capable of interpreting the relevant statute of limitations to allow potentially valid claims to proceed. Doing nothing would penalize the individual who has subconsciously invoked a coping mechanism to survive the effects of cruel abuse. I am impressed by the argument that "the law should not protect perpetrators who successfully traumatize their victims into repression." Ernsdorff & Loftus, Let Sleeping Memories Lie? Words of Caution About Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Cases of Memory Repression (1993), 84 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 129, 145.
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. At times, courts and judges are presented with issues that enable, if not require, us to demonstrate a restrained exercise of our considerable power. A case born of a dispute between two parties may require sdecision with far-reaching and broad application to all of society. The dispute between Kathy Ault and her father, John Jasko, has produced such a case in the courts of Ohio. One can imagine few crimes that engender more empathy for the victim than a child who has been assaulted and battered by a parent.
Assuming that monetary damages rather than, or perhaps in addition to, counseling and reconciliation represent the appropriate "remedy" for such alleged criminal conduct, we are presented with the issue clearly stated in the majority opinion: Does the discovery rule apply to toll the statute of limitations where a victim of childhood sexual abuse represses memories of that abuse until a later time? The majority opinion announces a rule of law that would permit a person at any age after any lapse of time between the alleged sexual abuse and the revived memory of such abuse to sue the alleged abuser for money damages. If that is to be the law of Ohio, it is the General Assembly that should declare it as such rather than this court.
The authorities cited in the dissenting opinion of Justice Wright are most persuasive. We simply do not have in the record in this case sufficient scientific, empirical or other information fro
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.
|
|