Sheehan v. Oblates of St. Francis de Sales
15 A.3d 1247
| Del. | 2011Background
- Sheehan filed a CVA action in 2007 against the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales and Salesianum School for abuse in 1962 by Norris.
- CVA repealed the civil statute of limitations for child sex abuse and created a two-year window to revive barred claims.
- Jury found the Oblates negligent but not Salesianum; it did not find proximate causation.
- Trial court excluded Sheehan’s general causation expert Langberg but admitted other corroborative witnesses; Tavani offered specific causation testimony.
- Delaware courts held CVA does revive some claims and that the applicable criminal code is the one in existence at the time of the abuse; this opinion reverses for two reasons and remands for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does excluding Langberg’s general causation testimony require reversal? | Langberg’s testimony was essential to proximate cause. | Langberg’s testimony lacks relevance and would prejudice the defense. | Yes; exclusion was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial. |
| Was the special verdict form error plain error? | Use of ‘the proximate cause’ misstates law; harms Sheehan. | Contextual jury instructions cure any error; no plain error. | Harmless, not plain error. |
| Did CVA revive intentional torts or only gross negligence? | CVA revives all acts by treating gross negligence as floor for revival. | CVA limits revival to gross negligence; intentional breaches not revived. | CV A revives conduct with gross negligence as floor; error to limit revival. |
| Which Delaware Criminal Code applies to CVA claims? | Code in effect at time of abuse should apply for notice purposes. | Current code governs the acts that would be crimes today. | Code in existence at time of abuse applies. |
| Does CVA as applied violate due process? | CVA retroactivity is permissible as remedy; no vested rights bar revival. | Retroactivity of CVA burdens institutions without notice. | CVA applies without violation of due process as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrow v. Abramowicz, 931 A.2d 424 (Del. 2007) (Delaware standard aiding review of negligence and related claims)
- Tolson v. State, 900 A.2d 639 (Del. 2006) (juries and jury instructions; standard of review)
- Probst v. State, 547 A.2d 114 (Del. 1988) (statutory interpretation and remedial statutes in Delaware)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (scope of retroactive laws; timing for applying statutes)