Doe v. Carlson
2017 IL App (1st) 160536
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jane Doe alleged that defendant Cherie Carlson, a church youth leader, sexually abused her beginning at age 16 and continuing intermittently until about age 20.
- Doe testified the abuse included fondling, kissing, and sexual penetration; she cried, felt ashamed, and did not view the relationship as consensual.
- Doe did not report the abuse at the time, partly because she feared Carlson’s threats and because prior complainants had been ostracized from the church.
- After the abuse ended, Doe experienced chronic anxiety, nightmares, and later was diagnosed with PTSD, but she did not connect those conditions to the abuse until about 2012.
- Doe filed suit in November 2013 asserting negligence, civil battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Carlson moved to dismiss as time-barred under the Illinois childhood-sexual-abuse limitations statute.
- The trial court dismissed; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal, holding the two-year limitations period ran from Doe turning 18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe’s suit was timely under 735 ILCS 5/13-202.2(b) (two-year discovery rule for childhood sexual abuse, running from age 18) | Doe argued she did not discover the causal link between the abuse and her long-term injuries until 2012, so the 2013 suit was timely | Carlson argued Doe knew of the abuse and its injurious effect by 1999 (or earlier), so the two-year period expired in 2001 | Held: Suit was untimely; Doe knew of the abuse and at least some injury when it occurred, so limitations ran from age 18 and expired before 2013 |
Key Cases Cited
- Clay v. Kuhl, 189 Ill. 2d 603 (supreme court) (discovery rule does not save claims when plaintiff knew of abuse when it occurred)
- Parks v. Kownacki, 193 Ill. 2d 164 (supreme court) (affirming that knowledge of abuse and reporting to others can start the limitations period)
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (supreme court) (articulating the discovery rule: accrual when plaintiff knows or should know injury and cause)
- Golla v. General Motors Corp., 167 Ill. 2d 353 (supreme court) (plaintiff need not know full extent of injury before suing)
- Softcheck v. Imesch, 367 Ill. App. 3d 148 (appellate court) (statute of limitations question may be decided as matter of law when facts are clear)