Los Angeles, Calif., Oct 15, 2013 / 04:56 am (CNA/EWTN News).- California Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a controversial bill that would have allowed more decades-old sexual abuse charges against Catholic schools and other non-profit institutions, while exempting public schools where abuse took place.
Auxiliary Bishop Gerald Wilkerson of Los Angeles, the president of the California Catholic Conference, said the bishops of the state are “grateful” that the bill was vetoed.
“It was unfair to the vast majority of victims and unfair to all private and non-profit organizations,” he said, adding that the bill “discriminated and treated victims unequally” in a way that was “impossible to morally or legally justify.”
The bill would have lifted the statute of limitations on child sex abuse lawsuits against private schools and private employers who failed to take action against sexual abuse by employees or volunteers. It would allow alleged victims younger than 31 to sue employers of abusers, extending present age limit for alleged victims from 26 years old.
However, S.B. 131 specifically exempted public schools and other government institutions from lawsuits.
Critics argued that this was unfair to Catholic and private schools, and that it failed to protect the vast majority – more than 90 percent – of California children who attend public schools.
The Wall Street Journal had criticized the proposed bill as a “nonprofit shakedown” targeting the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, and the “political enemies” of the legislature, where Democrats hold a supermajority of seats.
The bill also would have provided a one-year window for victims older than the new age limit to sue alleged negligent employers. This could have resulted in many new lawsuits concerning allegations dismissed after 2003, when the statute of limitations was previously suspended.
That suspension resulted in almost 1,000 claims against the Catholic Church in California, with legal awards totaling to $1.2 billion. Some of these claims dated back to the 1930s.
Gov. Brown explained his veto decision in a three-page Oct. 12 message to members of the State Senate. He argued that the bill’s policy of making private institutions “subject to suit indefinitely” while exempting public institutions is “simply too open-ended and unfair.”
He explained that legal cases alleging abuse make “valid and profoundly important claims,” but the statute of limitations is part of a legal tradition of “fairness.”
“There comes a time when an individual or organization should be secure in the reasonable expectation that past acts are indeed in the past and not subject to further lawsuits,” the governor said. “With the passage of time, evidence may be lost or disposed of, memories fade and witnesses move away or die.”
He also stressed that the bill’s failure to address the different treatment of abuse victims in public and private institutions continues a “significant inequity” in the law.
The Catholic Church and a coalition of non-profits and other religious organizations and private schools had opposed the bill.
Bishop Wilkerson said he thought the way the bill “discriminated” against victims of abuse in public institutions played a “major role” in prompting the veto. He also voiced hope that the Catholic Church’s response to abuse in the last 10 years – through its actions to protect young people and report allegations to law enforcement – further helped contribute to the veto.
The bishop pointed to the “safe environment” training instituted as a means of helping to protect children and discover potential abuse. Church workers and volunteers also undergo background checks.
He said that the Church suspends anyone, clergy or lay, who is suspected of abuse.
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2013-10-16 00:31:222013-10-16 00:33:21Bishop says victims' access to justice is unfair. Definition of narcissism! (http://www.patheos.com/)
Invoking a legal tradition of “fairness” dating back to Roman law, Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday vetoed legislation that would have extended the statute of limitations for some sex abuse victims.
Senate Bill 131, by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, would have opened a yearlong window for sex abuse victims who were excluded from a 2003 law that extended the statute of limitations.
Opponents painted the bill as an attack on the Catholic Church, and the church’s political arm called it a money grab by trial lawyers.
Brown, a former Catholic seminarian, issued an unusually lengthy, three-page veto message.
“Statutes of limitation reach back to Roman law and were specifically enshrined in the English common law by the Limitations Act of 1623,” he wrote. “Ever since, and in every state, including California, various limits have been imposed on the time when lawsuits may still be initiated. Even though valid and profoundly important claims are at stake, all jurisdictions have seen fit to bar actions after a lapse of years.”
The Democratic governor said the value of statutes of limitations is “one of fairness.”
“There comes a time when an individual or organization should be secure in the reasonable expectation that past acts are indeed in the past and not subject to further lawsuits,” he wrote. “With the passage of time, evidence may be lost or disposed of, memories fade and witnesses move away or die.”
The bill was backed by the National Center for Victims of Crime, the California Police Chiefs Association and the Consumer Attorneys of California. Supporters said the legislation was consistent with a growing understanding of the reasons victims of sexual abuse often wait years before reporting the crime.
Opponents of the legislation said the bill unfairly excluded public agencies, such as school districts, targeting private entities such as the Catholic Church.
The Rev. Gerald Wilkerson, president of the California Catholic Conference, issued a statement praising the veto.
He said the bill “was unfair to the vast majority of victims and unfair to all private and non-profit organizations.”
PHOTO: Gov. Jerry Brown speaks at the California Chamber of Commerce’s annual Host Breakfast in Sacramento on Wednesday, May 22, 2013. AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/10/jerry-brown-invokes-roman-law-vetoes-statute-of-limitations-bill-for-sex-abuse-victims-california-catholic.html#storylink=cpy
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2013-10-13 20:52:292013-10-13 20:52:29Jerry Brown invokes Roman Law, vetoes SOL bill for sex abuse victims
Gov Brown vetoing new CA window. Time to focus on states where no window has ever been passed. Let’s all rally to get window in NJ, MA, NY and PA!!!
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2013-10-13 00:06:282013-10-13 00:06:28Gov Brown vetoing new CA window. (SB 131)
Plaintiff alleges in this personal injury case that she was sexually abused by Defendant when she was a minor beginning on or before 2003 and continuing until “at least February, 2006.” Defendant has moved to dismiss, claiming that all or some of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff responds that at least some of her claims are saved by 10 Del. C. sec. 8145. The court agrees with her.
Procedural History
The procedural history here is unusual and, even though it does not change the end result, is worthwhile noting. In July 2006 Plaintiff’s father brought a similar suit against Dr. Hollingsworth on behalf of his daughter, who was then a minor. At some time during the pendency of that suit Ms.Waterhouse (then a minor) concluded she did not wish to pursue her claim. The trial judge assigned to that case met in camera with her and concluded that she wished to withdraw from the litigation. The judge further concluded it would be in the minor’s best interest to do so. As a result, on November 2, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing her claims without prejudice.
As mentioned, this prior [2] suit and its dismissal are not of consequence to the present issue. It goes without saying that the dismissal without prejudice does not, by itself, bar the filing of a second suit. Insofar as the statute of limitations is concerned, Plaintiff disavows any contention that the earlier dismissal without prejudice entitles her to any relief under the savings statute. 1
Analysis
In years gone by claims for sexual abuse were subject to the two year statute of limitations found in 10 Del. C. sec. 8119. 2 Although the General Assembly has carved out an exception to certain statutes of limitations for claims belonging to minors, that exception did not extend to personal injury claims which are limited by section 8119. 3 Thus even in the case of minors lawsuits claiming sexual abuse were barred if they were filed more than two years after the abuse occurred. But minors, perhaps even more so than adults, are understandably often reluctant to disclose that they have been the victim of sexual abuse. As a result section 8119 frequently barred otherwise valid claims for sexual abuse of a minor.
In 2007 the General Assembly remedied this inequity by enacting the Child Victim’s Act 4—10Del. C. sec. 8145. HN2 Subsection 8145 (a) eliminates the statute of limitations for civil claims of sexual abuse of a minor 5:
A cause of action based upon the sexual abuse of a minor by an adult may be filed in the Superior Court of this State at any time following the commission of the act or acts that constituted the sexual abuse. A civil cause of action for sexual abuse of a minor shall be based upon sexual acts that would constitute a criminal offense under the Delaware Code.
HN3 Although subsection (a) makes it clear that going forward there is no statute of limitations for claims of the sexual abuse of a minor, it is silent as to its retroactive effect. Subsection (b)however, provides a narrow window in which victims were [5] allowed to resurrect otherwise stale claims if they did so by filing a complaint on or before July 9, 2009. According to subsection (b):
HN4 For a period of 2 years following July 9, 2007, victims of child sexual abuse that occurred in this State who have been barred from filing suit against their abusers by virtue of the expiration of the former civil statute of limitations, shall be permitted to file those claims in the Superior Court of this State.
The instant suit was not filed until October 2012, and therefore Plaintiff’s claims are not covered by the limited resurrection provision of subsection (b). Indeed Plaintiff, to her credit, has disavowed any argument that this subsection applies to her claims. The court concludes, therefore, that Plaintiff’s claims for assaults occurring before July 9, 2005 are barred by section 8119.
This conclusion does not end the inquiry, however. It is still necessary to resolve what happens to claims for alleged acts [6] of abuse occurring between July 9, 2005 and July 9, 2007. At the time the statute was enacted those claims were not barred by section 8119 because they were not yet more than two years old. Thus for purposes of the resurrection provision of subsection (b), they could not be claims which “have been barred . . . by virtue of the expiration of the former statute of limitations” at the time the statute was enacted. Consequently they were not subject to the resurrection provision in subsection (b) and, therefore, Plaintiff’s failure to file a new claim before July 9, 2009 does not bar her claim.
Defendant points to testimony before the General Assembly as well as some of the legislative debate to support his contention that section 8145 is forward looking only and does not save Plaintiff’s claims arising between July 9 2005 and July 9, 2007. The language of the statute, however, compels a different conclusion. Although the provision in subsection (a) eliminating the statute of limitations does not expressly say anything about claims for acts occurring between July 9, 2005 and July 9, 2007, the operation of the statute precludes application of the two year bar insection 8119 to those claims. [7] The first day section 8119 would have barred any of those claims arising during that period (in the absence of section 8145) would have been July 10, 2007—two years and one day after the first day of that period, July 9, 2005. But as of July 10, 2009—the first day Defendant could have raised the statute of limitations defense to alleged assaults occurring on July 9, 2005—the statute of limitations with respect to such result had been eliminated. All of this is a round-about way of saying that by the time Defendant could have raised a statute of limitations defense to these claims, there was no statute of limitations to raise.
HN5 Statutes of limitation are often beneficial and play a fundamental role in our civil litigation structure. Even so, they act to preclude courts from deciding barred claims, even meritorious claims, on their merits. Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits. 6 Consistent with this, remedial measures such as section 8145 should be broadly construed in favor of allowing claims to be heard on their merits. 7 To the extent there is doubt about the application of section 8145 (and the court believes there is none), it must be resolved [8] in favor of allowing Plaintiff to present her claims of alleged assault occurring after July 9, 2005. 8
Finally Defendant argues that Plaintiff has known about her abuse and the injuries it has caused her for some time. He urges that the General Assembly could not have intended a result where Plaintiff could opt “to wait a potential twenty, thirty or forty years to bring her claim, perhaps when her alleged abuser has become more professionally successful, or when key witnesses may have died.” Although there may be reasons to require an abuse victim to file suit once he or she has become aware of the extent of his or her injuries (as is done in the case of inherently unknowable injuries) 9, that is not the course the General Assembly chose to take. If it ever becomes apparent that the absence of a statute of limitations becomes unworkable or yields unfair results, it lies wholly within the General Assembly’s province, not the court’s, to decide when and how to change the law. 10
For the forgoing reasons Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claims for alleged sexual assaults occurring before July 9, 2005 are dismissed. The remaining claims are not dismissed. 11
October 10, 2013
John A. Parkins, Jr., Judge
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2013-10-10 17:47:072014-01-13 17:54:362013-10-10 - Waterhouse - (Del. Super. October 10, 2013 ) (sex abuse not time barred actionable post CVA)
EAST WHITELAND — Justice4PAKids, a local organization that helps child sex abuse victims, will hold a motorcycle ride and after-party fundraiser Saturday at The Office Bar and Grille.
“It’s a unique fun fundraiser that we’re doing,” said Maureen Martinez, president of the organization.
The event will feature a two-hour, self-guided tour throughout Chester County followed by lunch and activities at The Office Bar and Grille, 1021 N. Morehall Road, near Malvern.
Robert Riley, vice president of the group, said he came up with the idea of a motorcycle ride because he is an “avid Harley-Davidson rider” and thought the fundraiser would be a unique way to reach out to the community. He said that after the success of the group’s spring 5K fundraiser, a motorcycle ride seemed like an event for the fall that would stand out and reach a giving group of people.
“Motorcycle guys and girls have a passion to help people in stressful situations,” said Riley. “Plus, I’m not aware of any other event like this in the area.”
Riley said he will be one of the leaders who will guide riders on a recommended route, but because it is a self-guided tour, motorcyclists may choose their own path. After the ride is finished, participants can stop by The Office Bar and Grille and purchase lunch, listen to speakers and enter a raffle.
According to Riley, 20 percent of profits made from food sales until 10 p.m. will go to the organization.
Speakers at the event include Chief Deputy District Attorney Pat Carmody, who will be speaking about the work the DA’s office does with child abuse victims, and State Sen. Andrew Dinniman, who will talk about legislation concerning child sexual abuse. Additionally, Martinez said the Crime Victims’ Center of Chester County will be handing out literature.
Raffle prizes will include items such as gift certificates and Harley-Davidson gear, as well as a wood carving that will be done by a local artist during the event, said Riley.
“There will be a guy doing a wood carving out of a tree,” added Martinez. “It’s going to look like the American eagle. He needs two hours to carve and finish it, and then we’re going to raffle it off to a lucky winner.”
All money raised during the event will go to Justice4PAKids. According to Riley, the organization has three main focus areas where it directs its efforts. They include improving the statute of limitations laws, education through seminars and literature, and comforting victims by putting them in touch with professional organizations.
The event will begin on Saturday with registration starting at The Office Bar and Grille at 9:30 a.m. and the self-guided motorcycle ride taking place from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Participants can then head back to The Office Bar and Grille for the after-party.
For more information, email info@justice4pakids.com.
Follow staff writer Kendal Gapinski on Twitter at @KendalGapinski.
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2013-10-10 15:27:412013-10-10 15:30:04Great organization and event to help SOL reform!
Bishop says victims’ access to justice is unfair. Definition of narcissism! (http://www.patheos.com/)
/in California /by SOL ReformCalif. governor vetoes ‘unfair’ abuse lawsuit bill
Los Angeles, Calif., Oct 15, 2013 / 04:56 am (CNA/EWTN News).- California Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a controversial bill that would have allowed more decades-old sexual abuse charges against Catholic schools and other non-profit institutions, while exempting public schools where abuse took place.
Auxiliary Bishop Gerald Wilkerson of Los Angeles, the president of the California Catholic Conference, said the bishops of the state are “grateful” that the bill was vetoed.
“It was unfair to the vast majority of victims and unfair to all private and non-profit organizations,” he said, adding that the bill “discriminated and treated victims unequally” in a way that was “impossible to morally or legally justify.”
The bill would have lifted the statute of limitations on child sex abuse lawsuits against private schools and private employers who failed to take action against sexual abuse by employees or volunteers. It would allow alleged victims younger than 31 to sue employers of abusers, extending present age limit for alleged victims from 26 years old.
However, S.B. 131 specifically exempted public schools and other government institutions from lawsuits.
Critics argued that this was unfair to Catholic and private schools, and that it failed to protect the vast majority – more than 90 percent – of California children who attend public schools.
The Wall Street Journal had criticized the proposed bill as a “nonprofit shakedown” targeting the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, and the “political enemies” of the legislature, where Democrats hold a supermajority of seats.
The bill also would have provided a one-year window for victims older than the new age limit to sue alleged negligent employers. This could have resulted in many new lawsuits concerning allegations dismissed after 2003, when the statute of limitations was previously suspended.
That suspension resulted in almost 1,000 claims against the Catholic Church in California, with legal awards totaling to $1.2 billion. Some of these claims dated back to the 1930s.
Gov. Brown explained his veto decision in a three-page Oct. 12 message to members of the State Senate. He argued that the bill’s policy of making private institutions “subject to suit indefinitely” while exempting public institutions is “simply too open-ended and unfair.”
He explained that legal cases alleging abuse make “valid and profoundly important claims,” but the statute of limitations is part of a legal tradition of “fairness.”
“There comes a time when an individual or organization should be secure in the reasonable expectation that past acts are indeed in the past and not subject to further lawsuits,” the governor said. “With the passage of time, evidence may be lost or disposed of, memories fade and witnesses move away or die.”
He also stressed that the bill’s failure to address the different treatment of abuse victims in public and private institutions continues a “significant inequity” in the law.
The Catholic Church and a coalition of non-profits and other religious organizations and private schools had opposed the bill.
Bishop Wilkerson said he thought the way the bill “discriminated” against victims of abuse in public institutions played a “major role” in prompting the veto. He also voiced hope that the Catholic Church’s response to abuse in the last 10 years – through its actions to protect young people and report allegations to law enforcement – further helped contribute to the veto.
The bishop pointed to the “safe environment” training instituted as a means of helping to protect children and discover potential abuse. Church workers and volunteers also undergo background checks.
He said that the Church suspends anyone, clergy or lay, who is suspected of abuse.
Jerry Brown
/in California /by SOL ReformInvoking a legal tradition of “fairness” dating back to Roman law, Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday vetoed legislation that would have extended the statute of limitations for some sex abuse victims.
Senate Bill 131, by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, would have opened a yearlong window for sex abuse victims who were excluded from a 2003 law that extended the statute of limitations.
Opponents painted the bill as an attack on the Catholic Church, and the church’s political arm called it a money grab by trial lawyers.
Brown, a former Catholic seminarian, issued an unusually lengthy, three-page veto message.
“Statutes of limitation reach back to Roman law and were specifically enshrined in the English common law by the Limitations Act of 1623,” he wrote. “Ever since, and in every state, including California, various limits have been imposed on the time when lawsuits may still be initiated. Even though valid and profoundly important claims are at stake, all jurisdictions have seen fit to bar actions after a lapse of years.”
The Democratic governor said the value of statutes of limitations is “one of fairness.”
“There comes a time when an individual or organization should be secure in the reasonable expectation that past acts are indeed in the past and not subject to further lawsuits,” he wrote. “With the passage of time, evidence may be lost or disposed of, memories fade and witnesses move away or die.”
The bill was backed by the National Center for Victims of Crime, the California Police Chiefs Association and the Consumer Attorneys of California. Supporters said the legislation was consistent with a growing understanding of the reasons victims of sexual abuse often wait years before reporting the crime.
Opponents of the legislation said the bill unfairly excluded public agencies, such as school districts, targeting private entities such as the Catholic Church.
The Rev. Gerald Wilkerson, president of the California Catholic Conference, issued a statement praising the veto.
He said the bill “was unfair to the vast majority of victims and unfair to all private and non-profit organizations.”
PHOTO: Gov. Jerry Brown speaks at the California Chamber of Commerce’s annual Host Breakfast in Sacramento on Wednesday, May 22, 2013. AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/10/jerry-brown-invokes-roman-law-vetoes-statute-of-limitations-bill-for-sex-abuse-victims-california-catholic.html#storylink=cpy
SB_131_2013_Veto_Message
/in California, Uncategorized /by SOL ReformGov Brown vetoing new CA window. (SB 131)
/in California /by SOL ReformGov Brown vetoing new CA window. Time to focus on states where no window has ever been passed. Let’s all rally to get window in NJ, MA, NY and PA!!!
2013-10-10 – Waterhouse – (Del. Super. October 10, 2013 ) (sex abuse not time barred actionable post CVA)
/in Cases, Cases (DE) /by SOL Reform2013-10-10 – Waterhouse – (Del.__ Super. October 10, 2013 ) (sex abuse not time barred actionable post__ CVA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff alleges in this personal injury case that she was sexually abused by Defendant when she was a minor beginning on or before 2003 and continuing until “at least February, 2006.” Defendant has moved to dismiss, claiming that all or some of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff responds that at least some of her claims are saved by 10 Del. C. sec. 8145. The court agrees with her.
Procedural History
The procedural history here is unusual and, even though it does not change the end result, is worthwhile noting. In July 2006 Plaintiff’s father brought a similar suit against Dr. Hollingsworth on behalf of his daughter, who was then a minor. At some time during the pendency of that suit Ms.Waterhouse (then a minor) concluded she did not wish to pursue her claim. The trial judge assigned to that case met in camera with her and concluded that she wished to withdraw from the litigation. The judge further concluded it would be in the minor’s best interest to do so. As a result, on November 2, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing her claims without prejudice.
As mentioned, this prior [2] suit and its dismissal are not of consequence to the present issue. It goes without saying that the dismissal without prejudice does not, by itself, bar the filing of a second suit. Insofar as the statute of limitations is concerned, Plaintiff disavows any contention that the earlier dismissal without prejudice entitles her to any relief under the savings statute. 1
Analysis
In years gone by claims for sexual abuse were subject to the two year statute of limitations found in 10 Del. C. sec. 8119. 2 Although the General Assembly has carved out an exception to certain statutes of limitations for claims belonging to minors, that exception did not extend to personal injury claims which are limited by section 8119. 3 Thus even in the case of minors lawsuits claiming sexual abuse were barred if they were filed more than two years after the abuse occurred. But minors, perhaps even more so than adults, are understandably often reluctant to disclose that they have been the victim of sexual abuse. As a result section 8119 frequently barred otherwise valid claims for sexual abuse of a minor.
In 2007 the General Assembly remedied this inequity by enacting the Child Victim’s Act 4—10Del. C. sec. 8145. HN2
Subsection 8145 (a) eliminates the statute of limitations for civil claims of sexual abuse of a minor 5:
HN3
Although subsection (a) makes it clear that going forward there is no statute of limitations for claims of the sexual abuse of a minor, it is silent as to its retroactive effect. Subsection (b)however, provides a narrow window in which victims were [5] allowed to resurrect otherwise stale claims if they did so by filing a complaint on or before July 9, 2009. According to subsection (b):
The instant suit was not filed until October 2012, and therefore Plaintiff’s claims are not covered by the limited resurrection provision of subsection (b). Indeed Plaintiff, to her credit, has disavowed any argument that this subsection applies to her claims. The court concludes, therefore, that Plaintiff’s claims for assaults occurring before July 9, 2005 are barred by section 8119.
This conclusion does not end the inquiry, however. It is still necessary to resolve what happens to claims for alleged acts [6] of abuse occurring between July 9, 2005 and July 9, 2007. At the time the statute was enacted those claims were not barred by section 8119 because they were not yet more than two years old. Thus for purposes of the resurrection provision of subsection (b), they could not be claims which “have been barred . . . by virtue of the expiration of the former statute of limitations” at the time the statute was enacted. Consequently they were not subject to the resurrection provision in subsection (b) and, therefore, Plaintiff’s failure to file a new claim before July 9, 2009 does not bar her claim.
Defendant points to testimony before the General Assembly as well as some of the legislative debate to support his contention that section 8145 is forward looking only and does not save Plaintiff’s claims arising between July 9 2005 and July 9, 2007. The language of the statute, however, compels a different conclusion. Although the provision in subsection (a) eliminating the statute of limitations does not expressly say anything about claims for acts occurring between July 9, 2005 and July 9, 2007, the operation of the statute precludes application of the two year bar insection 8119 to those claims. [7] The first day section 8119 would have barred any of those claims arising during that period (in the absence of section 8145) would have been July 10, 2007—two years and one day after the first day of that period, July 9, 2005. But as of July 10, 2009—the first day Defendant could have raised the statute of limitations defense to alleged assaults occurring on July 9, 2005—the statute of limitations with respect to such result had been eliminated. All of this is a round-about way of saying that by the time Defendant could have raised a statute of limitations defense to these claims, there was no statute of limitations to raise.
HN5
Statutes of limitation are often beneficial and play a fundamental role in our civil litigation structure. Even so, they act to preclude courts from deciding barred claims, even meritorious claims, on their merits. Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits. 6 Consistent with this, remedial measures such as section 8145 should be broadly construed in favor of allowing claims to be heard on their merits. 7 To the extent there is doubt about the application of section 8145 (and the court believes there is none), it must be resolved [8] in favor of allowing Plaintiff to present her claims of alleged assault occurring after July 9, 2005. 8
Finally Defendant argues that Plaintiff has known about her abuse and the injuries it has caused her for some time. He urges that the General Assembly could not have intended a result where Plaintiff could opt “to wait a potential twenty, thirty or forty years to bring her claim, perhaps when her alleged abuser has become more professionally successful, or when key witnesses may have died.” Although there may be reasons to require an abuse victim to file suit once he or she has become aware of the extent of his or her injuries (as is done in the case of inherently unknowable injuries) 9, that is not the course the General Assembly chose to take. If it ever becomes apparent that the absence of a statute of limitations becomes unworkable or yields unfair results, it lies wholly within the General Assembly’s province, not the court’s, to decide when and how to change the law. 10
For the forgoing reasons Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claims for alleged sexual assaults occurring before July 9, 2005 are dismissed. The remaining claims are not dismissed. 11
October 10, 2013
John A. Parkins, Jr., Judge
Kendal Gapinski
/in Pennsylvania /by SOL ReformBy Kendal Gapinski, Daily Local News
POSTED: |
EAST WHITELAND — Justice4PAKids, a local organization that helps child sex abuse victims, will hold a motorcycle ride and after-party fundraiser Saturday at The Office Bar and Grille.
“It’s a unique fun fundraiser that we’re doing,” said Maureen Martinez, president of the organization.
The event will feature a two-hour, self-guided tour throughout Chester County followed by lunch and activities at The Office Bar and Grille, 1021 N. Morehall Road, near Malvern.
Robert Riley, vice president of the group, said he came up with the idea of a motorcycle ride because he is an “avid Harley-Davidson rider” and thought the fundraiser would be a unique way to reach out to the community. He said that after the success of the group’s spring 5K fundraiser, a motorcycle ride seemed like an event for the fall that would stand out and reach a giving group of people.
“Motorcycle guys and girls have a passion to help people in stressful situations,” said Riley. “Plus, I’m not aware of any other event like this in the area.”
Riley said he will be one of the leaders who will guide riders on a recommended route, but because it is a self-guided tour, motorcyclists may choose their own path. After the ride is finished, participants can stop by The Office Bar and Grille and purchase lunch, listen to speakers and enter a raffle.
According to Riley, 20 percent of profits made from food sales until 10 p.m. will go to the organization.
Speakers at the event include Chief Deputy District Attorney Pat Carmody, who will be speaking about the work the DA’s office does with child abuse victims, and State Sen. Andrew Dinniman, who will talk about legislation concerning child sexual abuse. Additionally, Martinez said the Crime Victims’ Center of Chester County will be handing out literature.
Raffle prizes will include items such as gift certificates and Harley-Davidson gear, as well as a wood carving that will be done by a local artist during the event, said Riley.
“There will be a guy doing a wood carving out of a tree,” added Martinez. “It’s going to look like the American eagle. He needs two hours to carve and finish it, and then we’re going to raffle it off to a lucky winner.”
All money raised during the event will go to Justice4PAKids. According to Riley, the organization has three main focus areas where it directs its efforts. They include improving the statute of limitations laws, education through seminars and literature, and comforting victims by putting them in touch with professional organizations.
The event will begin on Saturday with registration starting at The Office Bar and Grille at 9:30 a.m. and the self-guided motorcycle ride taking place from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Participants can then head back to The Office Bar and Grille for the after-party.
For more information, email info@justice4pakids.com.
Follow staff writer Kendal Gapinski on Twitter at @KendalGapinski.