BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 924 (Beall)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: May 6, 2014
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Damages: Childhood Sexual Abuse: Statute of Limitations
DESCRIPTION
Existing law provides that an action for recovery of damages
suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse shall be
commenced within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains
the age of majority or within three years of the date the
plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that
the psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of
majority was caused by sexual abuse, whichever occurs later.
This bill would, instead, provide that an action described above
shall be commenced within 22 years of the date the plaintiff
attains the age of majority or within five years of the date the
fact of the psychological injury and its causal connection to
the sexual abuse is first communicated to the plaintiff by a
licensed mental health practitioner, whichever occurs later.
BACKGROUND
Before 1990, claims of childhood sexual abuse were governed by a
one year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 340(3).)
However, if the cause of action accrued while the plaintiff was
a minor, the statute was tolled until he or she became an adult.
(Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 352(a).) Thus, any complaint had to be
filed within one year of the plaintiff's 18th birthday.
In 1990, the Legislature rewrote the statute of limitations for
cases involving adult trauma caused by childhood sexual abuse.
(SB 108 (Lockyer, Ch. 1578, Stats. 1990).) That law provides
(more)
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 2 of ?
that the time limit for commencing an action based on injuries
resulting from "childhood sexual abuse" shall be eight years
after the plaintiff reaches the age of majority (i.e., age 26)
or within three years of the date of the plaintiff discovers or
reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury
or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the
abuse, whichever occurs later. As subsequently interpreted by
the courts, SB 108 changed the statute of limitations for
actions against the perpetrators, but did not change it for
actions against other responsible third parties. (See Debbie
Reynolds Prof. Rehearsal Studios v. Superior Court (1994) 25
Cal.App.4th 222; Tietge v. Western Province of the Services
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 382.)
In 1998, the Legislature responded to this interpretation and
enacted AB 1651 (Ortiz, Ch. 1021, Stats. 1998) to apply the
extended statute of limitations to actions against third
parties. However, any action against any person or entity other
than the sexual abuser would have to be commenced before the
plaintiff's 26th birthday. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 340.1(b).) In
2002, SB 1779 (Burton and Escutia, Ch.149, Stats. 2002) was
enacted to extend the statute of limitations in cases against a
third party who was not the perpetrator of the sexual abuse
beyond age 26, when the third party knew or had reason to know
of complaints against an employee or agent for unlawful sexual
conduct and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid similar
unlawful conduct by that employee or agent in the future. SB
1779 also created a one year window in which victims could bring
a claim against a third party when that claim would have
otherwise been barred solely because the statute of limitations
had expired.
Almost 1,000 cases were filed in California during the one year
window in 2003. However, between 2005 and 2012, about 50
cases were filed by victims who were over the age of 26 in 2003,
but did not make a causal connection between childhood abuse and
problems as an adult until after 2003. The Quarry brothers, who
filed suit in 2007, were among those who filed one of these
cases. The trial court dismissed the case based on their age in
2003 (over 26 years of age), stating that the brothers should
have brought their case within the one year window under SB
1779. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's decision, and held that the one year window only applied
to victims who were both over the age of 26, and had made the
required causal connection more than three years prior to
January 1, 2003. It held that victims like the Quarry brothers
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 3 of ?
were not barred as of January 1, 2003, and could avail
themselves of the option of filing a claim within three years
from discovery.
Ultimately, the Quarry case and about 20 others were taken up by
the California Supreme Court. (Quarry v. Doe (2009) 53 Cal.4th
945.) The Court held that the Legislature failed to make its
intent for SB 1779 to be retroactive clear, and the rules of
statutory construction required that when the Legislature amends
a statute of limitations, that amendment is presumed to be
prospective, and is retroactive only if the Legislature
expressly provides that it is intended to be retroactive and
revive previously time-barred claims. The majority found the
language of SB 1779 did not satisfy that rule of construction,
and must be interpreted prospectively, or limited to the one
year window. The dissent disagreed, and invited the Legislature
to fix the problem.
That invitation was answered by SB 131 (Beall, 2013), which
would have allowed the statute of limitations to be applied
retroactively to any claim that had not been adjudicated as of
January 1, 2014. That bill also would have revived, for a
period of one year, a cause of action that would have otherwise
been barred by the statute of limitations as of January 1, 2014,
provided that the plaintiff's 26th birthday was before January
1, 2003, and the plaintiff discovered the cause of his or her
injury on or after January 1, 2004.
SB 131 was vetoed by the governor who noted the reliance of
third parties on the certainty of the statute of limitations
created by SB 1779, and the unintentional inequities when that
bill only benefited victims who sought to sue a private entity.
Regarding SB 131, the governor wrote:
This bill does not change a victim's ability to sue a
perpetrator. This bill also does not change the significant
inequity that exists between private and public entities.
What this bill does is go back to the only group, i.e.
private institutions, that have already been subjected to the
unusual "one year revival period" and makes them, and them
alone, subject to suit indefinitely. This extraordinary
extension of the statute of limitations, which legislators
chose not to apply to public institutions, is simply too
open-ended and unfair.
This bill similarly seeks to allow victims of child sexual abuse
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 4 of ?
additional time to bring a claim against a third party
defendant, and would toll the beginning of the period for
delayed discovery until a licensed mental health practitioner
communicates the injury stemming from the abuse to a victim.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law generally provides that the time for commencing a
civil action for damages shall be within two years of the injury
or death caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.
(Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 340.)
Existing law provides that the time for commencing an action
based on injuries resulting from childhood sexual abuse, as
defined, shall be eight years after the plaintiff reaches
majority (i.e., 26 years of age) or within three years of the
date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have
discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring
after the age of majority was caused by the abuse, whichever
occurs later. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 340.1.)
Existing law provides that in the civil actions described above
against persons or entities other than the perpetrator, whose
intentional, negligent, or wrongful act was the legal cause of
the sex abuse, the plaintiff must show that the person or entity
knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of
unlawful sexual conduct of an employee or agent, and failed to
take reasonable steps, as specified, to avoid acts of unlawful
sexual conduct in the future. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 340.1.)
This bill would instead provide that the time for commencing an
action based on injuries resulting from childhood sexual abuse,
as defined, shall be 22 years after the plaintiff reaches
majority (i.e., 40 years of age) or within five years of the
date the injury and its causal connection to the sexual abuse
was first communicated to the plaintiff by a licensed mental
health practitioner practicing within the state, whichever
occurs later.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 5 of ?
Over the last 27 years the California Legislature has come to
have a better understanding of the insidious and latent nature
of the injuries suffered by a child who has been sexually
abused and the reasons why victims of childhood sexual abuse
("CSA") often wait years before reporting the abuse to law
enforcement or otherwise. California Code of Civil Procedure,
Sec. 340.1, a remedial statute intended to provide redress to
CSA victims, has been amended no less than five times since
its original enactment in 1986, consistent with this evolving
knowledge of the latent effects of the original abuse.
SB 924 is a modest proposal that would provide victims of CSA
more time than the current age of 26 and 3 years delayed
discovery to come forward and report their abuse. This
additional time is necessary to allow victims of CSA to seek
justice and expose their abusers and the third parties that
aided and abetted these heinous acts.
2.Extending the time period in which a victim may bring a claim
will not necessarily result in more victims coming forward
Existing law allows a victim of child sexual abuse to bring a
claim against a third party defendant until the age of 26, or
within three years of the time that he or she discovers that the
psychological injury he or she has experienced as an adult is
the result of the abuse inflicted on him or her as a child.
This bill would increase those time limits to age 40, or within
five years of discovering that injury is connected to abuse
experienced as a child. The California Police Chiefs, in support
of this bill write "well documented medical literature, which
has developed since the time the statute of limitations was last
extended, demonstrates that psychological injuries stemming from
sexual abuse emerge later in life, well past the age of 26.
Therefore, there is a real medical need to have the statute
extended."
The author argues that fear, shame, and self-blame are also
common reasons for failure to immediately report childhood
sexual abuse. The author writes "this is especially true in
boys who have been abused by men. Self-blame may last well into
adulthood and is one of the major psychological impediments to
reporting, even in adulthood. The most common response of CSA
victims to the question why they did not report is that they
were afraid. They were fearful that something terrible would
happen to them, or their loved ones, or that no one would
believe them. In one study of 930 women, forty-four who
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 6 of ?
disclosed abuse for the first time, blamed fear for their
reluctance."
Thus, while there appears to be general consensus on the fact
that many victims do not report until later in life, and that
victims should be afforded time to acquire the strength to come
forward, there does not appear to be agreement as to what age is
appropriate. The current time limits of 26 years of age or
within three years from the time a victim discovers that abuse
of the cause of his or her injuries, reflect careful negotiation
and compromise by a large number of stakeholders with the
approval of the Legislature. Regarding the role and importance
of statutes of limitation, the governor wrote in his veto
message of SB 131:
Statutes of limitation reach back to Roman law and were
specifically enshrined in the English common law by the
Limitations Act of 1623. Ever since, and in every state,
including California, various limits have been imposed on the
time when lawsuits may still be initiated. Even though valid
and profoundly important claims are at stake, all
jurisdictions have seen fit to bar actions after a lapse of
years.
The reason for such a universal practice is one of fairness.
There comes a time when an individual or organization should
be secure in the reasonable expectation that past acts are
indeed in the past and not subject to further lawsuits. With
the passage of time, evidence may be lost or disposed of,
memories fade and witnesses move away or die.
In this bill, the author suggests extending the previously
agreed upon age and time limit, but provides no justification
for why 40 is an appropriate age, or why five years from the
time of discovery would result in more victims being emotionally
ready and able to come forward. As a matter of policy, it is
important that victims are encouraged to come forward as soon as
possible. This is important not only to ensure that evidence is
available for a party to prove his or her case, but also to
expose the abuser and bring an end to the chain of abuse.
Arguably, extending the amount of time a victim has to bring a
claim extends the amount of time a perpetrator may continue
abusing children.
Instead of extending existing time limits, the author may wish
to consider whether victims might be better served by reducing
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 7 of ?
financial barriers that victims face in bringing claims,
incentivizing attorneys to represent victims in these important
cases, and ensuring that victims are provided with education
about existing legal remedies when law enforcement, medical, or
mental health professionals learn that a person may have been a
victim of child sexual abuse.
3.Further amending the statute of limitations would create
confusion and uncertainty
SB 924 would extend the existing statute of limitations in which
a victim of child sexual abuse may bring a claim against a third
party defendant. The prospective nature of this bill means that
only victims who have not yet reached the age of 26 by January
1, 2015, would benefit from the extension of the limitation
period until age 40. Victims over the age of 26 as of the
beginning of next year, would not have until age 40 to bring a
claim, as that would be retroactive application. In addition,
it is not clear how the extended delayed discovery provision
would apply to individuals. Clearly, everyone under the age of
26 who has not yet made the causal connection between abuse
suffered and adult-onset injury as of January first of next year
would benefit from a five-year delayed discovery provision; but
would victims over the age of 26 who have not yet discovered the
cause of their injury benefit as well? In addition, a victim
who is in her first or second year of delayed discovery may not
get the benefit of five years, since her discovery was made
before the enactment of this bill. This seems especially unfair
to victims who are close to a 26th birthday, but still desire
more time to come forward.
The complexity of this problem is demonstrated by the experience
of the Quarry brothers (see Background) who arguably should have
been able to bring their claims under the delayed discovery
provision enacted by SB 1779 (Burton and Escutia, Ch. 1249,
Stats. 2002). Their story indicates that even with prospective
application, a delayed discovery option creates confusion and
uncertainty in application, depending on when a person made the
requisite discovery.
As a matter of policy, confusion and uncertainty does not assist
in the fair administration of justice. Staff notes that when
actions are dismissed on a statute of limitations basis, the
court is never able to consider the merits of the case. Just as
defendants need to know when they might be called to defend an
action, plaintiffs should have a clear understanding of when
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 8 of ?
they fall within the statute of limitations and are thereby able
to bring a claim. In order to encourage victims to come
forward, the law should be clear as to when they have a chance
of actually prevailing.
4.Fact of the injury communicated by a mental health
practitioner may create negative unintended consequences
Existing law employs a delayed discovery provision, which
authorizes a victim to bring an action within three years from
discovering the causal connection between the psychological
illness he or she has suffered as an adult and the sexual abuse
experienced as a child. Practically speaking, this allows
persons who make the connection between the abuse and injury
much later in life, to bring a claim within a reasonable period
of time.
This bill would instead provide that a person may bring a claim
within five years of the date the fact of the psychological
injury and its causal connection to the sexual abuse is first
communicated to the plaintiff by a licensed mental health
practitioner. Thus, this bill would create a "standardized"
approach, where the time period for delayed discovery would be
triggered by a specific event involving a third person, instead
of at the time a victim achieves a subjective awareness.
The California Council of Nonprofit Organizations (CCNO) argues
that the requirement that the injury be communicated to the
victim by a mental health practitioner creates avenues for
abuse:
SB 924 would put complete control of the delayed "discovery"
in the hands of the claimant. The existing standard at least
nominally contains a subjective and objective component in the
"discovers or reasonably should have discovered" language. SB
924 would permit a plaintiff who is 100 percent aware of both
the injury and the connection to the childhood abuse to
nevertheless extend the statute indefinitely by merely
refusing to enter therapy with a mental health
practitioner-thereby controlling the timing of the "first
communication" of the connection by the therapist and
triggering of the limitation period. Particularly troubling
is the fact that this loophole would theoretically permit a
claimant to strategically wait to trigger the filing period
until witnesses are infirm or dead, and documents have been
surely discarded, thereby virtually eliminating any chance
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 9 of ?
that the defendant could effectively defend against the claim.
The author instead argues that requiring a mental health
professional to communicate the connection between abuse and
injury is necessary because, "this avoids the concern that a
child sex abuse victim can just claim that they have only now
made a causal connection if that is not the case, and it avoids
a defense argument that any understanding constitutes a 'causal
connection.'" Staff notes that this provision, which the author
seeks to include as a means of ensuring that victims are able to
bring claims when they are emotionally ready to come forward,
could have the unintended consequence of triggering the
limitation period early for a victim who has not yet made the
causal connection between the abuse and her injuries.
5.Opposition's additional concerns
The California Catholic Conference, Inc. (CCC) and the
California Council of Nonprofit Organizations (CCNO) both argue
that this bill should address injustices to victims of abuse
inflicted by employees of the State of California. CCC writes:
While SB 924 pays lip service to the interests of victims of
abuse, it fails to correct the enormous injustice in the law
that denies any extended limitations period to victims of
abuse by individuals employed by the State of California. This
is because the six month filing requirement in the Government
Tort Claim Act overrides and drastically shortens the time
period by which a victim of abuse by a state government
employee can pursue claims-even in a case where the agency
knew of the propensities of the perpetrator but failed to act
to prevent harm to other victims.
CCNO writes "it is shocking that SB 924 fails to include any
further amendments to address this discriminatory and enormously
unfair distinction. Regardless of specific changes in SB 924 to
expand the limitations period for victims of childhood sexual
abuse, the fact remains that none of those provisions would
benefit a child victimized by a state government employee."
Support : American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy;
California Association for Marriage and Family Therapy;
California Police Chiefs Association; California Protective
Parents Association; Child Abuse Listening Mediation, Inc.;
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 10 of ?
Child Abuse Prevention Center; Consumer Attorneys of California;
Crime Victims United; Incest Survivors' Speakers Bureau;
Restorative Justice International
Opposition : California Catholic Conference Inc.; California
Council of Nonprofit Organizations
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : SB 926 (Beall, 2014) would
increase the base period for prosecuting a sex crime against a
victim under the age of 18, from any time up to the victim's
28th birthday, to any time up to the victim's 40th birthday.
This bill is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Prior Legislation :
SB 131 (Beall, 2013) See Background.
AB 1628 (Beall, 2012) would have extended the statute of
limitations in civil cases involving child sex abuse to 35 years
of age, prohibited confidential settlements, and imposed new
duties on private entities. This bill died in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
SB 640 (Simitian, Chapter 383, Statutes of 2008) See Comment 5.
SB 1779 (Burton and Escutia, Chapter 149, Statutes of 2002) See
Background.
AB 1651 (Ortiz, Chapter 1021, Statutes of 1998) See Background.
SB 108 (Lockyer, Chapter 1578, Statutes of 1990) See Background.
**************