Cisko v. Diocese of Steubenville
123 So. 3d 83
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In May 2009 appellants sued the Diocese of Steubenville for negligence arising from alleged physical and sexual abuse by two diocesan priests in 1966–1967.
- The complaint alleged traumatic amnesia prevented recall of the abuse until May 2005, and plaintiffs relied on the delayed-discovery doctrine to avoid the statute of limitations.
- The Diocese moved for summary judgment, asserting Florida’s four-year negligence statute of limitations barred the suit.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding Hearndon v. Graham did not apply to negligence claims and was limited to intentional torts by the perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse.
- The court affirmed, concluding extension of Hearndon to negligence claims is a legislative, not judicial, matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delayed-discovery doctrine as applied in Hearndon tolls accrual of a negligence claim based on childhood sexual abuse with traumatic amnesia | Hearndon permits tolling where traumatic amnesia delayed discovery, so negligence claims should accrue when memory returns (2005) | Hearndon is limited to intentional-tort actions against perpetrators; negligence is not covered and the statute of limitations bars suit | Affirmed: Hearndon is limited to its facts (intentional torts for childhood sexual abuse); negligence claims are not tolled under Hearndon; relief is for the Legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2000) (applied delayed-discovery doctrine to childhood sexual abuse with traumatic amnesia in an intentional-tort action)
- Davis v. Monahan, 832 So.2d 708 (Fla. 2002) (explains and narrows Hearndon to its specific facts and intentional-tort context)
- Doe v. Sinrod, 90 So.3d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (declined to apply statutory tolling provisions modeled on Hearndon to negligence-based abuse claim)