IRON WING, Plаintiff and Appellant, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SIOUX FALLS, Defendants and Appellees.
No. 25729.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Decided Nov. 30, 2011.
2011 S.D. 79 | 806 N.W.2d 108
Argued Oct. 4, 2011.
Michael
Michael J. Ford, Dyan J. Eberts of Quinlivan & Hughes, PA, St. Cloud, Minnesota, Attorneys for defendants and appellees Oblate Sisters.
Rochelle Sweetman, Michael L. Luce of Murphy, Goldammer & Prendergast, LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellee Catholic Diocese.
Robert Stich of Stich, Angell, Kreidler & Dodge, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Eric C. Sсhulte of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellee Blue Cloud Abbey.
KONENKAMP, Justice.
[¶ 1.] In October 2008, plaintiff brought suit for sexual abuse committed more than forty years earlier. He averred that the abuse was рerpetrated by a nun and a priest at a boarding school he attended. Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting that the limitations period had expired on plaintiff‘s claims because he failed to commence his action “within three years of the act alleged to have caused the injury or condition, or three years of the time [he] discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by the act, whichever period expires later.” See
Background
[¶ 2.] D.Z. Iron Wing attended boarding school at St. Paul‘s Indian School in Marty, South Dakota from first to eleventh grade. More than forty years later, on October 8, 2008, Iron Wing brought suit against various defendants for sexual abuse committed by Sister Mary Francis Poitra when he was age ten and by Father Francis Sutmueller when plaintiff was in high school.1 Sr. Poitra, who died before this suit was initiated, was a dorm matron in the little boys’ dorm at St. Paul‘s. Iron Wing said that she would tаke him into her room at night when the rest of the children were sleeping and “would start fondling [his] genitals which lasted for about 15 minutes[.]” These abuses were alleged to
[¶ 3.] Fr. Francis, Iron Wing said, would call him to his room at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, and would tell Iron Wing to lie оn the bed. Iron Wing then detailed how the abuse proceeded:
He sat down beside me and he started to like rub my forehead. He told me I was going to go to sleep. He told me when I woke up I wasn‘t going to remember anything. But I didn‘t go to sleеp. I just closed my eyes because I was too afraid to go to sleep. But once he thought I was asleep, then he took my shorts off of me. He started playing with my genitals. He was talking to me. While he thought I was asleep, he was talking to me. He, he was talking to me and saying things like don‘t be afraid because I know—I know you are going to like this. I‘m not going to hurt you.
Iron Wing recounted that Fr. Francis progressed from fondling his genitals to “sucking on [his] penis.” These abuses were repeated on eight or nine occasions.
[¶ 4.] When Iron Wing was in his junior year of high school, he told his father and stepmother of the abuse. According to Iron Wing, his stepmother “walked up beside me and she slapped me alongside the head. She said how dare you talk about those people, those priests, those nuns, how dare you talk about them like that. She said those are people of God. They don‘t do those kinds of things. She said who are you to go and spread lies. She said you don‘t—don‘t be talking like that.” After that, Iron Wing said he “never told anybody.” But he left St. Paul‘s and attended high school in Flandreau, South Dakota.
[¶ 5.] During his deposition, defendants asked Iron Wing about his memories of the abuse and what problems it caused him during his life. Iron Wing testified that he never forgot what Sr. Poitra and Fr. Francis did to him. He also explained that “[t]he main problem it caused with that incident, with that person [Sr. Poitra], was a lot of hatred for the nuns and that whole order, not just her. A lot оf hatred for the church. That‘s basically the main problem that it caused. I don‘t trust them.” He said that Fr. Francis‘s abuse caused him to harbor hatred toward the church and priests. That hatred and anger developed during his junior year of high school.
[¶ 6.] Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Iron Wing‘s claims against all defendants expired more than three years before October 8, 2008. For childhood sexual abuse allegations, “[a]ny civil action . . . shall be commenced within three years of the act alleged to have caused the injury or condition, or three years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by the act, whichеver period expires later.”
[¶ 7.] Iron Wing responded that despite his knowledge of the abuse and knowledge that he had anger toward the church, priests, and nuns, there was no evidence that he was aware of the causal сonnection between the alleged abuse and his injuries. He submitted an affidavit and report from Dr. Jeffery King, a specialist in cultural psychology. Dr. King opined that Iron Wing did not make the causal connection between his abuse and injury until early 2009, because his anger concealed the memories and emotions associated with the abuse. Anger and hatred, according to Dr. King, were coping mechanisms: “[w]hile these mechanisms are related to the sexual abuse, it must be understood that these are defenses to protect him from the emotional and psychological distress caused by the abuse. These defenses allowed Iron Wing to dis-
tance
[¶ 8.] In its memorandum decision, the circuit court wrote that Iron Wing “always remembered the alleged sexual abuse.” The court relied on Iron Wing‘s testimony that he told his father and stepmother about the abuse during his junior year of high school. The court further found that Iron Wing‘s hatred and anger toward the church, nuns, and priests was an “injury” for the purposes of
[¶ 9.] Iron Wing appeals. He argues that hatred or anger do not constitute an “injury” under
Analysis and Decision
[¶ 10.] Under
[¶ 11.] Because Iron Wing‘s alleged sexual abuse occurred more thаn forty years ago, he had to have brought his civil action within “three years of the time [he] discovered or reasonably should have
[¶ 12.] This case is controlled by our decisions in One Star, 2008 S.D. 55, 752 N.W.2d 668 and Rodriguez v. Miles, 2011 S.D. 29, 799 N.W.2d 722. As in Rodriguez, Iron Wing relies on expert opinion that his anger and hatred were mere coping mechanisms, and that he did not make the connection between his anger and hatred and the sexual abuse. Yet, as we wrote in Rodriguez, “even assuming that [he] did not discover the connection between the sexual abuse and his injuries or condition until 2005, his action may still be barred if he was put on inquiry notice more than three years before he commenced his action.” 2011 S.D. 29, ¶ 9, 799 N.W.2d at 725-26. Thus the question here, as it was in Rodriguez, is “whеther [Iron Wing] became aware of facts that would have prompted ‘a reasonably prudent person to seek information about the problem and its cause’ more than three years before commencing his aсtion, or, stated otherwise, whether he had inquiry notice.” Id. When asked what problems the sexual abuse caused over the course of his life, Iron Wing responded: “The main problem it [referring to Sr. Poitra] caused . . . was a lot of hatred fоr the nuns and that whole order, not just her. A lot of hatred for the church. That‘s basically the main problem it caused. I don‘t trust them.” He gave a similar answer with respect to Fr. Francis‘s abuse. And he explained that he began to experience this hatred in “[his] 11th grade year, 1965.”
[¶ 13.] An action “accrues and the plaintiff is put on inquiry notice when facts come to light that would prompt a reasonably prudent person to seek out information regarding his or her injury or condition and its сause.” One Star, 2008 S.D. 55, ¶ 18, 752 N.W.2d at 677. “Inquiry notice is determined by an objective standard.” Rodriguez, 2011 S.D. 29, ¶ 11, 799 N.W.2d at 726. Although Iron Wing perhaps subjectively could not “connect the full extent of his injuries to the sexual abuse, he was aware of enough facts to put him on inquiry notice.” See id. He knew he had been abused by two members of a religiоus order beginning when he was age ten and resuming at age thirteen, because of this abuse he was angry and harbored hatred against the church and its priests and nuns from the time he was in the eleventh grade, he left the school because of the abuse, and he never forgot the abuse. These circumstances were sufficient to “‘prompt[ ] a reasonably prudent person to seek out information regarding his injury or condition and its cause.‘” See Zephier, 2008 S.D. 56, ¶ 14, 752 N.W.2d at 665 (citation omitted);
[¶ 14.] Affirmed.
[¶ 15.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and ZINTER, SEVERSON, and WILBUR, Justices, concur.