Opinion ID: 1179822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Text: The Bonners assert that their claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree. The Bonners contend that the some damage rule should have prevented the trial court from granting the diocese's motion for summary judgment on the basis of I.C. § 5-219(4). The brothers contend that their damage was not objectively ascertainable until they remembered the abuse, citing Chicoine v. Bignall, 122 Idaho 482, 487, 835 P.2d 1293, 1298 (1992). They argue that just as the order in Chicoine granting a new trial protected [the plaintiff] from any damage their repression of the memories of the abuse protected them from any emotional damage until the memories resurfaced. Id. Unlike some states which have tolled the statute of limitations for repressed memories, Idaho is not a discovery jurisdiction. Thus, the question under Chicoine is when was there some objectively ascertainable damage sufficient to start the running of the statute of limitations. Even though the emotional damage the Bonners say they suffered may not have occurred until they remembered the events, there was also immediate damage at the time of any abuse. An act of sexual abuse is a battery and entitles the victim to at least nominal damages in a suit filed immediately following the act. Cf. Pierson v. Brooks, 115 Idaho 529, 537, 768 P.2d 792, 800 (Ct.App.1989). Therefore, some objectively ascertainable damage occurred at the time of any abuse of the Bonners by the priest, and the statute of limitations bars the Bonners' claims.