Court Opinion

ID: 9526378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:16:24.949629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:36.189433
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The essence of statutes of limitation is the cessation of otherwise viable claims due to the passage of time. See Kissel v. Rosenbaum (1991), Ind.App., 579 N.E.2d 1322, 1326-1327 (discussion of statutes of limitation and stat utes of repose). As noted in Kissel:
"Society benefits when claims and causes are laid to rest after having been viable for a reasonable time. When causes of action are extinguished after such time, society generally may continue its business and personal relationships in peace, without worry that some cause of action may arise to haunt it because of some long-forgotten act or omission. This is not only for the convenience of society but also due to necessity. At that point, society is secure and stable."
Id. at 1328.
In adopting statutes of limitation or repose, the legislature has determined that, even in the setting where a great harm has been accomplished, the action for recovery will be foreclosed if not reasonably pursued. Here, the plaintiffs knew of at least some of the harmful acts of defendants and were aware of emotional and psychological problems for many years prior to filing their claims.
I agree that our Supreme Court substantially liberalized the rule regarding the commencement of the statute of limitations in tort claims. Wehling v. Citizens Nat. Bank (1992), Ind., 586 N.E.2d 840, 842 ("discovery rule," merged with "ascertainment rule," to determine when cause of action acerued, applicable to all tort claims). However, it does not follow that plaintiffs may acknowledge the existence of the tortious conduct, yet, maintain that through due diligence the causes of action could not have been discovered during an approximately 20-year period after they attained the age of majority.
Citing Wehling, the court in Malachowski v. Bank One, Indianapolis (1992), Ind., 590 N.E.2d 559, 564, reiterated that "a cause of action for a personal injury claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of ordinary diligence could have discovered, that an injury had been sustained as a result of the tortious act of another." A particularly difficult situation arises when, as here, the resultant damage is primarily psychological rather than physiological. Extension of the "discovery rule" to the circumstances in the present case renders the statute of limitations a nullity. Once a plaintiff acknowledges that harmful conduct occurred and realizes that psychological and emotional problems exist, the statute of limitations cannot be extended indefinitely based upon a subjective assertion that plaintiff was unable to ascertain the nexus between the two.
The court in Barnes v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (1985), Ind., 476 N.E.2d 84, 86, stated:
"[the problem [of determining when the statute of limitations begins to run] comes about when the act, seemingly innocent, causes changes so subtle and latent that they are not discoverable to the plaintiff until they manifest themselves many years later."
Aside from the obvious differences in actions involving some product which causes physiological damage, the acts here were not innocent and should have, through the exercise of due diligence, placed the plaintiffs on notice that their psychological difficulties were connected to the illicit acts.
*1210Though the defendants may have characterized the abuse as punishment, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs knew that at least some of the tortious acts which caused the harm occurred. Any perceived harshness of the rule requiring the plaintiffs to exercise due diligence in interpreting the harm which occurred while they were minors is ameliorated by the lengthy delay in commencement of the limitations period until the minors attained the age of majority.
The majority opinion notes that application of the Wehling rule would allow plaintiffs to survive summary judgment and that "[o0ln the record before us what knowledge each might be charged with based upon the exercise of ordinary care remains a disputed question of fact." Op. at 1209. However I would find, based upon the undisputed facts that plaintiffs knew of some of the tortious conduct and knew of psychological and emotional problems well before 1990, that the subjective assertions that they could not in the exercise of ordinary diligence discover the nexus between the harm and the damage are insufficient as a matter of law. Accordingly, I would vote to reverse the denial of summary judgment.