Court Opinion

ID: 9709832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:55:41.013167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:51.446421
License: Public Domain

GARDEBRING, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority, by its decision today, would have us equate a moral knowledge of wrongdoing with the legal concept of knowledge of causation of injury. The respondent knew, as any child would, that the actions of appellant were wrong — morally wrong. But that knowledge, based on upbringing, cannot be equated to an understanding of causation of a personal injury, especially an injury which did not manifest itself until many years later.
The majority reaches this conclusion by consistently misreading the statute of limitations which is at issue here. The statute says:
An action for damages based on personal injury caused by sexual abuse must be commenced within six years of the time *4the plaintiff knew or had reason to know that the injury was caused by the sexual abuse.
Minn.Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2(a) (1992)(emphasis added). Thus, the statute requires:
1. personal injury;
2. sexual abuse; and
3. knowledge or reason to know that the injury was caused by the sexual abuse.
It is almost too well established to require note that the plain language of a statute should not be disregarded if the meaning is clear. See State v. Klumpp, 536 N.W.2d 613, 615 (Minn.1995); Green Giant Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 534 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn.1995); State v. Carpenter, 459 N.W.2d 121, 126 (Minn.1990). A reading of the plain language of the statute at issue here demonstrates that it is the knowledge of causation which triggers the 6-year limitation period, not merely knowledge that sexual abuse occurred. The majority opinion ignores this key statutory language when it defines the “ultimate question” as “the time at which the complainant knew or should have known that he/she was sexually abused.” Ante, at 3 (emphasis added). Knowledge that sexual abuse occurred or even knowledge of the other prerequisite, personal injury (in this ease, alcoholism and other psychological difficulties), is not central; it is the link between them, the causation, one of the other, which must be considered in order to determine whether a lawsuit is within the limitations period.
Furthermore, in addition to overlooking the plain language of the statute, the majority opinion undermines the very purpose of this “delayed discovery” statute of limitations. In enacting this unusual provision, the legislature certainly was aware that some delay might occur between the time the acts occurred and the commencement of the action. Nevertheless, it enacted the statute of limitations in recognition of the fact that injuries from sexual abuse are often psychological in nature, that they may be essentially latent for many years (at least until adolescence in most cases) and that shame and denial often accompany the events.
Yet it is this feeling of shame which the majority identifies as evidence that respondent knew of the abuse and the link to his injuries. In doing so, the majority ignores the fact that only recently have mental health professionals come to understand the causative link between childhood sexual abuse and later dysfunction in life. Shame is not the same as knowledge that sexual abuse caused injury and the legislature understood this when it enacted this delayed discovery statute. The intent of the statute was to address the claims of children who may have been aware of the immediate shame and suffering caused by the sexual abuse, but not aware of its link to the emotional injury which manifested itself later in life.
Apparently this court expects even childhood victims of sexual abuse to possess an understanding of the legal precepts of Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Hill, 314 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.1982), which says that “as a matter of law one is ‘injured’ if one is sexually abused.” However, the statute at issue here does not turn on the legal determination of “injury by sexual abuse,” it turns on the victim’s knowledge of the link between the two.
The majority’s misconstruing of the statute is especially troubling in the procedural context of this case, on consideration of a motion for summary judgment. We have said “[wjhere there are disputed questions of material fact as to whether a plaintiff is barred by a statute of limitations, these questions are to be decided by a jury.” Grondahl v. Bulluck, 318 N.W.2d 240, 243 (Minn.1982). Yet in this case the majority removes from the jury’s consideration this very material issue, when the respondent knew or should have known that the emotional injuries he was experiencing were caused by sexual abuse which occurred many years earlier.
Summary judgment cannot be granted if genuine issues of material fact exist. Here, a reasonable person could find that respondent did not know, nor had reason to know, that the emotional injuries he was experiencing were caused by earlier sexual abuse until 1991 when he discussed the past abuse with another victim. If so, inasmuch as he filed *5suit in 1992, he was well within the 6-year statute of limitations.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.