Doe v. Carlson
71 N.E.3d 806
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jane Doe alleged repeated sexual abuse by defendant Cherie Carlson beginning when Doe was 16 (mid-1990s) in the context of a church youth mentorship relationship; abuse ceased by 1999 when Doe was 20.
- Doe testified she felt the contact was "wrong" and "inappropriate" at the time, cried during incidents, and informed a third party (Claire) around 1999 that Carlson had been sexually inappropriate with her.
- Doe did not report the abuse earlier due to observing prior consequences for others who accused Carlson and because Carlson threatened self-harm if told.
- Doe began therapy and connected her ongoing PTSD to the abuse in 2012; she filed suit in November 2013 alleging negligence, civil battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Carlson moved to dismiss as time-barred under the childhood-sexual-abuse discovery statute (735 ILCS 5/13-202.2(b)/(d)), arguing Doe knew or should have known by 1999; the trial court granted dismissal and Doe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe's action was timely under the childhood sexual abuse discovery statute | Doe argued the statute did not begin to run until she discovered the causal link between abuse and injury in 2012 | Carlson argued Doe knew of the abuse and its injurious consequences by 1999, so the 2-year limitations period expired in 2001 | Held: Dismissal affirmed — Doe knew the abuse when it occurred and knew (or is presumed to have known) at least part of her injury caused by it by age 18, so limitations expired before suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Clay v. Kuhl, 189 Ill. 2d 603 (Ill. 2000) (discovery rule does not save suit where plaintiff knew of abuse when it occurred; knowledge of injury is presumed)
- Parks v. Kownacki, 193 Ill. 2d 164 (Ill. 2000) (affirming Clay; plaintiff's contemporaneous reports showed awareness of wrong; discovery rule did not toll limitations)
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (Ill. 1981) (defining accrual under the discovery rule)
- Softcheck v. Imesch, 367 Ill. App. 3d 148 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (statute of limitations begins to run as a matter of law when discovery-rule facts are clear from pleadings)
- Golla v. General Motors Corp., 167 Ill. 2d 353 (Ill. 1995) (plaintiff need not know full extent of injury before filing under discovery rule)