|SOL: + 10 years from majority, vs perp and vs employer where in a supervisory or caretaker role.
1. La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.9(A) (“ An action against a person for sexual abuse of a minor, or for physical abuse of a minor resulting in permanent impairment or permanent physical injury or scarring, is subject to a liberative prescriptive period of ten years. This prescription commences to run from the day the minor attains majority, and this prescription shall be suspended for all purposes until the minor reaches the age of majority. Abuse has the same meaning as provided in Louisiana Children’s Code Article 603(1). This prescriptive period shall be subject to any exception of peremption provided by law.”)
a. Johnson v. Roman Catholic Church, 844 So. 2d 65 (La. App. 1 Cir. Feb. 14 2003), writ denied 843 So. 2d 401 (La. May 9, 2003) (applying ten-year prescriptive period of La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.9(A) to sexual abuse case filed against a priest, a parish, and a church because priest occupied role of “caretaker” where the nature of the relationship between the priest and a minor created a dependency upon an authority figure)(
i. (10-year period applied because three-year prescriptive period in La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3496.1—which La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.9(A) replaced as to child abuse–had not expired when it was amended)
b. SS v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 831 So. 2d 926 (La. Dec. 4 2002) (applying La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.9(A) to parent’s action against shelter care facility operator concerning alleged rape of parent’s child by employee as action alleged claim of inadequate supervision–constituting abuse under La. Child. Code Ann. art. 603(1)–and court found that term “person” as used in La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.9(A) applied to operator, a corporation, because (1) corporation fell within term “person” under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 24, and (2) the operator fell within the purpose of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.9(A) based on its operation of a facility to house minors taken into custody by the state department of social services.)
c. Dugas v. Durr, 707 So. 2d 1368 (La.App. 3 Cir. Mar. 6 1998), writ denied by La. 98-0910, 719 So. 2d 464 (La. May 15, 1998) (finding that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.9–should be read in pari materia leading to the conclusion that the extended prescriptive period of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3496.1 applies to a claim of abuse based on lack of supervision which allowed or caused abuse to a minor.)
1. Majority, yes. AGE 18
a. Majority occurs at Age 18. Doe v. Jones, 857 So. 2d 555, 557 (La. App. 1 Cir. Sept. 26, 2003)
b. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.9 (“This prescription commences to run from the day the minor attains majority, and this prescription shall be suspended for all purposes until the minor reaches the age of majority.”)
2. Discovery tolling, Yes, Narrow
a. La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.9(A) (“This prescriptive period shall be subject to any exception of peremption provided by law”)
b. Wimberly v. Gatch, 635 So.2d 206, 211-12 (La. 1994) (“[T]he discovery rule, provides that prescription commences on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which his cause of action is based. Hence, prescription does not accrue as it does not run against one who is ignorant of the facts upon which his cause of action is based, as long as such ignorance is not willful, negligent or unreasonable”) (internal citations omitted).
1. Wimberly v. Gatch, 635 So. 2d 206, 211 (La. Apr. 11, 1994) (“The courts created the doctrine of contra non valentem, as an exception to the general rules of prescription. The doctrine is contrary to the express provisions of the Civil Code. See LSA-C.C. art. 3467. The principles of equity and justice which form the mainstay of the doctrine, however, demand that under certain circumstances, prescription be suspended because plaintiff was effectually prevented from enforcing his rights for reasons external to his own will. Generally, the doctrine of contra non valentem suspends prescription where the circumstances of the case fall into one of the following four categories: 1. Where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff’s action; 2. Where there was some condition coupled with a contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting; 3. Where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action; and 4. Where some cause of action is not known or reasonably knowable by the plaintiff, even though his ignorance is not induced by the defendant.”) (internal citations omitted).
ii. LA Discovery rule is not necessarily always +1 year, just that the SOL in this Wimberly case was 1 year.
|30 years from victim’s 18th birthday for most crimes (age 48). La. C.Cr.P. Art. 571.1
Art. 571.1. Time limitation for certain sex offenses
La. C.Cr.P. Art. 571.1(“Except as provided by Article 572 of this Chapter, the time within which to institute prosecution of the following sex offenses, regardless of whether the crime involves force, serious physical injury, death, or is punishable by imprisonment at hard labor shall be thirty years: sexual battery (R.S. 14:43.1), second degree sexual battery (R.S. 14:43.2), oral sexual battery (R.S. 14:43.3), human trafficking (R.S. 14:46.2(B)(2) or (3)), trafficking of children for sexual purposes (R.S. 14:46.3), felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile (R.S. 14:80), indecent behavior with juveniles (R.S. 14:81), pornography involving juveniles (R.S. 14:81.1), molestation of a juvenile (R.S. 14:81.2), prostitution of persons under eighteen (R.S. 14:82.1), enticing persons into prostitution (R.S. 14:86), crime against nature (R.S. 14:89), aggravated crime against nature (R.S. 14:89.1), crime against nature by solicitation (R.S. 14:89.2(B)(3)), that involves a victim under seventeen years of age. This thirty-year period begins to run when the victim attains the age of eighteen.”)
Child porn and trafficking offense were added to this section effective 2012. See, Acts 2012, No. 446, § 5, eff. Aug. 1, 2012.
[human trafficking (R.S. 14:46.2(B)(2) or (3)), trafficking of children for sexual purposes (R.S. 14:46.3),… pornography involving juveniles (R.S. 14:81.1),…, prostitution of persons under eighteen (R.S. 14:82.1), enticing persons into prostitution (R.S. 14:86), …crime against nature by solicitation (R.S. 14:89.2(B)(3))]
2012 La. HB 49, 2012 La. ALS 446, 2012 La. ACT 446, 2012 La. HB 49