Walker v. Barrett
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17125
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Walker alleges Barrett, a vocal music teacher, sexually abused him starting in 1992 when Walker was 15; Hetherington was principal at Logan-Rogersville High School; Walker asserted nine claims against Barrett, the School District, and Hetherington; the district court dismissed Counts 2–9 and then denied leave to amend; Barrett's motion to dismiss Count 1 was initially denied but later granted on limitations; the district court held five-year limitations barred Counts 3–9 and, under 1990 § 537.046, barred Barrett’s childhood sexual abuse claim; Walker appealed asserting accrual and nonperpetrator liability issues; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts 3–9 are time-barred | Counts accrued when damages became ascertainable; argument relies on Powell and memory theories | Accrual occurred at time of abuse; five-year or similar limitations expired | Counts 3–9 time-barred |
| Whether Title IX and § 1983 claims are time-barred | Should be governed by Missouri personal-injury limitations | Five-year Missouri statute applies; time-barred | Yes, time-barred |
| Whether Barrett's childhood sexual abuse claim was timely | Disagreement over discovery vs. ascertainment; 2004 § 537.046 could revive | Accrued in 1995 under 1990 version; 2004 amendment cannot revive | Time-barred; vested right destroyed; 2004 amendment cannot revive |
| Whether nonperpetrator defendants can be liable under § 537.046 | § 537.046 applies to accessories/ratification | Statute defines abuse by defendant; does not apply to nonperpetrators | Nonperpetrator liability not available under § 537.046; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Walker should be allowed to amend | Amendments would establish liability theories and memory-related claims | Amendments would be futile; statute does not apply to nonperpetrators | District court did not err in denying amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Marianist Province of U.S. v. Ross, 258 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. 2008) (capable-of-ascertainment standard in sexual-abuse cases; notice of actionable injury)
- Dempsey v. Johnston, 299 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. Ct.App. 2009) (ascertainment vs. discovery; memory not required for notice)
- Ridder v. Hibsch, 94 S.W.3d 470 (Mo.Ct.App. 2003) (treatment of limitations for abuse claims; accrual timing)
- Straub v. Tull, 128 S.W.3d 157 (Mo.Ct.App. 2004) (discovery vs. ascertainment; interplay with § 537.046)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Jefferson City, 862 S.W.2d 338 (Mo. 1993) (vested rights; effect of amendments on limitations)
- Harris v. Hollingsworth, 150 S.W.3d 85 (Mo.Ct.App. 2004) (discovery/ascertainment distinction under § 537.046)
- O'Neil v. Simplicity, Inc., 574 F.3d 501 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards; pleading requirements)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (accrual of § 1983 claims governed by state law)
- Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615 (8th Cir. 1995) (Title IX claims linked to state personal-injury limitations)