Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: May 28, 2010 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of May 28, 2010, the Minnesota appellate courts released an opinion on the following topic that may be of interest to our clients:
SEXUAL ABUSE CASES –
1. Not a Separate Cause of Action
2. Intrafamilial Immunity Inapplicable Between Siblings
3. Delayed Discovery Statute Applies Retroactively to Sexual Abuse Cases
-
There is no separate cause of action for sexual abuse cases. However, the claim will survive where there is a valid common-law tort claim. Where the sexual abuse claim is being brought against a sibling, the doctrine of intrafamilial immunity does not apply, and therefore, does not bar the suit. Additionally, such claims are covered by the delayed discovery statute of limitations which applies retroactively, making otherwise stale claims valid.
A woman alleged that her brother had sexually abused her during their childhood between 1974 and 1977. In 2007 she sued him in federal district court, claiming the repressed memories resurfaced during therapy sessions. The district court dismissed the case, concluding intrafamilial immunity barred the action. She appealed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals certified three questions for the Minnesota Supreme Court to answer: (1) whether Minnesota law recognizes a cause of action for “sexual abuse,” (2) whether intrafamilial immunity applies between siblings for a sexual abuse or battery tort, and (3) whether the statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.073 (“Delayed Discovery Statute”) applies retroactively.
(a) Sexual Abuse Cases Are Not a Separate Cause of Action.
Although the Delayed Discovery Statute recognizes some cause of actions as being rooted in sexual abuse, the statute does not itself establish a separate cause of action for sexual abuse claims. Instead, the statute simply extends the time for plaintiffs to bring tort claims that involve sexual abuse.
(b) Intrafamilial Immunity Does Not Apply Between Siblings.
While the doctrine of intrafamilial immunity is applicable and justified under certain circumstances, such as between a parent and child, it does not apply between siblings. The Court declined to extend immunity between siblings for a battery tort based on sexual abuse committed between unemancipated minors.
(c) The Delayed Discovery Statute Applies Retroactively to Sexual Abuse Cases.
When the legislature made the statute applicable to claims “pending on or commenced on or after” the effective dates, it manifested a clear intent to make the delayed discovery statute and its amendments retroactive. The court reasoned that applying the statute retroactively was consistent with the original purpose of the statute, which was to offer additional time to sexual abuse victims to recognize and act upon their abuse, while placing a limit on when such claims may be brought. Because the statute applied retroactively, it revived the plaintiff’s claim.
Lickteig v. Kolar, A09-1728 (Minn. 5/27/10).
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, J.S. Andresen, M. Covin, S. Gustad, B. Sande, C. Hund, S. Sitek, T. Quick, D. Camarotto, K. Burke, J. Marquet, D. Turner, L. Pugh, M. Bradford, P. Semrow, and S. Pearson |
Writer this Week: |
Jessica L. Klander, Law Clerk |