821 N.W.2d 224
S.D.2012Background
- Former students allege childhood sexual abuse at St. Paul’s School (pre-1975) and sue entity defendants and the Diocese.
- Plaintiffs pursue theories of negligent hiring/retention, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for and against some entity defendants; remaining entity claims were dismissed.
- SDCL 26-10-25 (1991) provided an extended period for intentional childhood sexual abuse actions; 2010 amendment added a repose provision for non-perpetrators.
- The suits against entity defendants were filed more than 20 years after the alleged acts and after the three-year accrual period under traditional tort limits.
- Court addresses whether SDCL 26-10-25 extends to non-perpetrators and, if not, whether SDCL 15-2-14(3) bars the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SDCL 26-10-25 extend to non-perpetrating defendants? | Bernie/Zephier argue the statute applies to non-perpetrators. | Entity defendants contend the extension is limited to perpetrators and intentional acts; not applicable to negligence claims. | SDCL 26-10-25 does not apply to non-perpetrators. |
| Are the claims barred by the three-year toll under SDCL 15-2-14(3) and 15-2-22? | Victims argue tolling or discovery rules extended timely filing. | Defendants contend accrual occurred and filing was time-barred under three-year limits. | Yes, claims barred by SDCL 15-2-14(3) and 15-2-22; filed after limitations expired. |
| Did legislative amendments in 2010 reflect a view on applicability to non-perpetrators? | Amendment shows SDCL 26-10-25 applied to non-perpetrators. | Amendment pertains to a different issue and does not retroactively expand coverage. | Legislative amendment not binding to expand SDCL 26-10-25 to non-perpetrators for these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zephier v. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, 752 N.W.2d 658 (S.D. 2008) (addressed SDCL 26-10-25 applicability)
- One Star v. Sisters of St. Francis, 752 N.W.2d 668 (S.D. 2008) (considered extension for non-perpetrators)
- Stratmeyer v. Stratmeyer, 567 N.W.2d 220 (S.D. 1997) (statutory interpretation of limitations for intentional acts)
- Werre v. David, 913 P.2d 625 (Mont. 1996) (based-on-intent analysis for statutes of limitations)
- C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 985 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1999) (Washington approach to 'based on' intentional conduct)
- Sandoval v. Archdiocese of Denver, 8 P.3d 598 (Colo. App. 2000) (plain-language limitation to perpetrator-based claims)
- Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996) (statutory interpretation emphasizing intentional conduct)
- Debbie Reynolds Professional Rehearsal Studios v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (early view limiting extended statute to perpetrators)
- Walker v. Barrett, 650 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 2011) (federal comparison on scope of liability and acts)
- Morgan v. Baldwin, 450 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 1990) (nature of action and accrual guidance in SD law)