Doe v. Silverman

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 07-19-2017
  • Case #: A159481
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, P.J. for the Court; DeHoog, J.; & Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

ORS 12.117 extends the statute of limitations if a plaintiff alleges a defendant had “actual, and not merely constructive, knowledge of child abuse.” Lourim v. Swensen, 147 Or App 425, 444, 936 P2d 1011 (1997) (Lourim I), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 328 Or 380, 977 P2d 1157 (1999) (Lourim II).

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment that dismissed his claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s determination that he did not raise a factual issue. On appeal, Plaintiff argued summary judgment was inappropriate because the two declarations proffered as evidence were sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Defendant responded that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. ORS 12.117 extends the statute of limitations if a plaintiff alleges a defendant had “actual, and not merely constructive, knowledge of child abuse.” Lourim v. Swensen, 147 Or App 425, 444, 936 P2d 1011 (1997) (Lourim I), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 328 Or 380, 977 P2d 1157 (1999) (Lourim II). The Court of Appeals determined that the two declarations Plaintiff provided as evidence supported the suggestion that Defendant knew of the abuse, thus, extended the statute of limitations, and raised a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the lower court erred by granting summary judgment. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search