Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson, Miss., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02572-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-02572-SCT2004-CA-02572-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 03-07-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-06-2006 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-59 - Discovery rule - Section 15-1-49 (2) - Latent injury - Fraudulent concealment Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): SOUTHWICK AND IRVING, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: Negligence |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-15-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO DEFENDANT/APPELLEE Case Number: 251-03-821CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JANE DOE |
HIAWATHA NORTHINGTON |
||
| Appellee: | ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, BISHOP WILLIAM R. HOUCK, HIS PREDECESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AND GEORGE BROUSSARD | CHRISTY MICHELLE SPARKS, JANET MCMURTRAY, JOSEPH L. MCNAMARA, JOHN JEFFREY TROTTER |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-59 - Discovery rule - Section 15-1-49 (2) - Latent injury - Fraudulent concealment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jane Doe claims that in the early 1970's, Father George Broussard and Father Tommy Boyce, priests with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson, Mississippi, began sexually abusing her. Doe claims that her past injuries were renewed sometime after 2001 when she learned that the Diocese and its leaders were aware of the activities of the priests. Thereafter, Doe filed a complaint on July 18, 2003 against the Diocese and several other parties, alleging conspiracy, fraud and fraudulent concealment, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence per se. The Diocese and Houck collectively filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the statute of limitations had expired on Doe’s claims. The court granted summary judgment against Doe, and dismissed her claims with prejudice. Doe appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Doe’s claims are governed by the general statute of limitations set forth in section 15-1-49, prior to its 1989 amendment. Any claim that accrued prior to 1989 is subject to a six year statute of limitation. Because Doe was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse, the statute of limitations was tolled by section 15-1-59 until she turned twenty-one, when she reached the age of majority. Assuming that Doe was born in 1959, she turned twenty-one in or about 1980. Doe would have had until 1986 to file her claim of abuse before the six year statute of limitations, which was tolled during her minority, expired. Therefore, Doe’s claims are time barred on their face. Doe argues that the discovery rule set out in section 15-1-49 (2) should toll the limitations period because she did not psychologically comprehend that the priests’ acts were abuse, she did not connect the priests’ actions to her emotional problems, and she only recently began to psychologically comprehend that the priests’ acts were abusive and the cause of her injuries. Essentially, the discovery rule provides for a special exception to the standard three-year statute of limitations for “latent injury or disease.” A latent injury is defined as one where the plaintiff is precluded from discovery of the harm or injury because of the secretive or inherently undiscoverable nature of the wrongdoing in question, or when it is unrealistic to expect a layman to perceive the injury at the time of the wrongful act. The acts of abuse alleged by Doe are physical acts of which a person is generally aware when the event occurs. Given the nature of the physical acts Doe alleges she endured from Boyce and Broussard, and her age at the time of the abuse, Doe was certainly aware of the abuse at the time of its occurrence. Thus, the discovery rule does not apply in Doe’s case. Doe also argues that her claims should survive the time bar because of an alleged conspiracy by the Diocese to fraudulently conceal from her abuse about which it knew. In order to establish fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants engaged in some act or conduct of an affirmative nature designed to prevent and which does prevent discovery of a claim, and though plaintiffs acted with due diligence in attempting to discover the claim, they were unable to do so. Doe did not present any evidence showing that any party committed any act or conduct of an affirmative nature designed to prevent, and which did prevent, discovery of a claim. Nor does Doe present any evidence showing any effort on her part to discover any information from the Diocese, prior to her complaint being filed in 2003. Therefore, the statute of limitations was not tolled. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
