S.J., a Minor by J., B. & C. v. Gardner, C.
167 A.3d 136
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Minor S.J. alleged repeated sexual abuse by Calvin M. Gardner from age 6 until July 2010; parents reported the abuse in July 2010 and Gardner pled guilty to indecent assault in 2011.
- S.J., through her parents (guardians B.J. and C.J.), filed a civil complaint for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress on October 31, 2013.
- Gardner moved for summary judgment arguing the suit was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations for intentional torts (42 Pa.C.S. § 5524).
- Appellants invoked the Minority Tolling Statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 5533(b)) to suspend the limitations period while S.J. was a minor.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the parents could not use the Minority Tolling Statute because they had filed suit on S.J.’s behalf before she turned eighteen and therefore were required to comply with the two-year limit.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the Minority Tolling Statute suspends the limitations period for minors regardless of whether a guardian files suit before majority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Minority Tolling Statute (§ 5533(b)) suspended the limitations period for S.J.’s claim so the parents’ 2013 suit was timely | Minority tolling suspends the limitations period while S.J. is a minor; filing by guardians does not start the limitations clock | Suit was untimely under the two‑year intentional tort statute; guardians should have filed within that period and cannot invoke tolling | Tolling applies; limitations were suspended until S.J. turned 18, so the parents’ suit was filed before the limitations period began to run; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether defendant’s raising statute‑of‑limitations in a summary judgment motion (rather than as new matter) foreclosed review | Plaintiffs did not object to procedural defect so the issue may be reviewed on the merits | Defendant raised an affirmative defense improperly in a summary‑judgment motion | Court reviewed merits because plaintiffs waived procedural objection by not raising it |
Key Cases Cited
- Fancsali ex rel. Fancsali v. Univ. Health Ctr. of Pittsburgh, 761 A.2d 1159 (Pa. 2000) (tolling statute means limitations measured from 18th birthday even if guardian files earlier)
- Czimmer v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., 122 A.3d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2015) (same principle endorsing Fancsali)
- Foti v. Askinas, 639 A.2d 807 (Pa. Super. 1994) (tolling not meant to give minors unfair advantage when a prior suit was dismissed)
- Robinson v. Pennsylvania Hosp., 737 A.2d 291 (Pa. Super. 1999) (tolling extends time for commencing action but does not permit repeated opportunities to cure initial dismissal)
- McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2005) (purpose of statutes of limitation is to discourage delay and stale claims)