Harrington v. Costello
467 Mass. 720
Mass.2014Background
- Harrington, a Catholic priest at St. Patrick’s (Falmouth), alleged that fellow priests Costello and Perry published a false accusation that a parishioner had accused him of stalking her minor son, causing harassment, ridicule, and other harms.
- In January 2005 Costello told Perry that a parishioner had accused Harrington of stalking her son; Perry then told two religious education directors the same. Harrington was informed of the accusation in 2005 and experienced adverse consequences thereafter.
- Costello and Perry refused to disclose the alleged source; Perry and Bishop Coleman gave Harrington partial or misleading accounts. Harrington only learned the identity of the coworker (LeBrun) on November 6, 2007, and then learned LeBrun denied making the accusation.
- Harrington sued Costello and Perry for defamation on November 1, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss under the three-year statute of limitations (G. L. c. 260, § 4).
- The Superior Court and a divided Appeals Court panel held the suit was time-barred; Harrington sought further appellate review.
- The Supreme Judicial Court framed the key legal question as whether, under the discovery rule, accrual is delayed until a plaintiff knows the identity of the defendant (and whether tolling under G. L. c. 260, § 12 for fraudulent concealment applies).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a defamation cause of action accrue under the discovery rule? | Harrington: accrual is tolled until plaintiff knows the identity of the defendant who caused the harm; he did not learn defendants’ true role until 2007. | Defendants: accrual occurred on 2005 publication when Harrington knew the publishers and the harm. | Held: Accrual requires knowledge (or reasonable knowledge) of harm, that another’s conduct caused it, and the defendant’s identity. Harrington knew publishers in 2005, so claim accrued then. |
| Does a plaintiff need to know the defendant’s legal vulnerability (e.g., lack of conditional privilege) before accrual? | Harrington: accrual should wait until plaintiff knows defendants were not privileged or were negligent. | Defendants: No — accrual does not require knowledge of legal defenses or viability. | Held: Knowledge of legal viability or absence of defenses is not required; statutes shouldn’t be delayed until plaintiff can overcome potential defenses. |
| Does G. L. c. 260, § 12 (fraudulent concealment) toll the limitations period where defendants lied about the source? | Harrington: defendants’ misrepresentations and concealment of LeBrun’s identity fraudulently concealed the cause of action and tolled the statute. | Defendants: Facts giving rise to the cause of action (publication and publishers’ identities) were known in 2005, so § 12 does not apply. | Held: § 12 did not toll the period — defendants’ lies concealed motive but not the publication or identity of the publishers, which are the facts creating the cause of action. |
| Does the discovery rule apply to defamation claims generally (e.g., widely disseminated print libel)? | Harrington: discovery rule applies so accrual can be delayed in appropriate circumstances. | Defendants: (Implicit) discovery rule may be inapplicable where publication is widely disseminated and easily discoverable. | Held: The discovery rule applies generally to defamation (subject to exceptions like widely disseminated public libel discussed in Flynn). |
Key Cases Cited
- Flynn v. Associated Press, 401 Mass. 776 (discovery rule and accrual on publication in widely available media)
- White v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 442 Mass. 64 (publication defined as communication to a third party; elements of defamation)
- Doe v. Creighton, 439 Mass. 281 (discovery rule requires awareness of injury and that defendant caused it)
- Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., 408 Mass. 204 (accrual tested by what a reasonable person would know or discover)
- Riley v. Presnell, 409 Mass. 239 (plaintiff’s burden to plead facts taking case outside statutory period)
- Crocker v. Townsend Oil Co., 464 Mass. 1 (§ 12 tolling requires concealment of facts creating the cause of action)
- Stetson v. French, 321 Mass. 195 (cause of action not concealed where plaintiff knows facts that create it)
- Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222 (standard for accepting complaint allegations on motion to dismiss)
- Humphrey v. National Semiconductor Corp., 18 Mass. App. Ct. 132 (conditional privilege is an affirmative defense; defendant bears initial burden)