BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 924
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 924 (Beall and Lara)
As Amended June 11, 2014
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :23-11
JUDICIARY 7-1 APPROPRIATIONS 13-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Dickinson, Garcia, | |Bradford, Ian Calderon, |
| |Muratsuchi, Stone | |Campos, Eggman, Gomez, |
| | | |Holden, Linder, Pan, |
| | | |Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, |
| | | |Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Wagner |Nays:|Bigelow, Donnelly, Jones, |
| | | |Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends the statute of limitations for civil actions
involving childhood sexual abuse for abuse occurring on or after
January 1, 2015. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides, for abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2015,
that the time for commencing a civil action based on injuries
resulting from childhood sexual abuse, as defined, is 22 years
after the plaintiff reaches majority (i.e., until 40 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.
2)Exempts, from the Government Tort Claims Act, claims under 1)
above, against a local public entity.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, generally, that the time for commencing a civil
action for damages is within two years of the injury or death
caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.
2)Provides that the time for commencing a civil action based on
SB 924
Page 2
injuries resulting from childhood sexual abuse, as defined, is
eight years after the plaintiff reaches majority (i.e., until
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.
3)Allows suit against the perpetrator or specified third
parties, but prohibits suit against third parties after the
plaintiff's 26th birthday, unless the person or entity knew or
had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any
unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer,
representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps,
and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of
unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person, as
specified.
4)Exempts, from the Government Tort Claims Act, claims for
childhood sexual abuse against a local public entity, arising
out of conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2009.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Unknown annual state trial court costs, potentially in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the extent extending the
statute of limitations results in additional civil cases. For
example, if this bill results in 10 additional cases that
average two weeks of court time, annual costs could be in the
range of $400,000.
Court costs would be higher or lower depending on the number
of cases, the types of cases, and how cases are handled. Some
cases would be settled without significant court time. Some
may be grouped together. Others may require lengthier
hearings and trials.
2)Indeterminable, potentially significant, out-year costs to
local school districts, to the extent prospective sex abuse
offenses are committed and civil litigation is successfully
brought outside the current statute of limitations. To the
extent civil judgments cannot be absorbed by school districts
and the state must make loans or augment appropriations, there
could be a state fiscal impact.
SB 924
Page 3
In addition, to the extent an extended statute of limitations
affects liability insurance premiums, school district could
experience unknown, potentially significant, costs related to
procuring liability insurance, apart from any claims.
COMMENTS : This bill extends, prospectively only, the time for
commencing lawsuits concerning childhood sexual abuse.
Currently these actions must be brought before the victim turns
26 years of age or within three years of the date the victim
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. Under
this bill, these deadlines will still apply for any act of abuse
that occurs prior to January 1, 1015. However, for any act of
abuse that occurs on or after January 1, 2015, this bill extends
the statute of limitations until the victim turns 40, while
maintaining the additional three-year period when the victim
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the
psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of
majority was caused by the abuse. This proposal applies equally
to abuse occurring at public and private schools and applies to
all local public entities.
As a result of the uniqueness of childhood sexual abuse and the
difficulty younger victims may have fully understanding the
abuse, coming to terms with what has occurred, and then coming
forward in a timely fashion, many states have special, extended
statutes of limitations for childhood sexual abuse. Six
jurisdictions - Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Connecticut, Maine,
and Guam - have gone as far as to eliminate the civil statute of
limitations with respect to some or all claims based on
childhood sexual abuse. Other states allow for very lengthy
discovery periods in adulthood, including Oregon, which permits
claims to be filed until the victim is 40 years old or within
five years of discovery, and Illinois, which allows a victim to
bring suit until 38 or within 20 years of discovery.
California law, as amended in 1990, requires that such actions
be brought within eight years of the age of majority (generally
up to 26 years old) or within three years of the date the
plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that
psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of
majority was caused by the sexual abuse, whichever period
SB 924
Page 4
expires later. (SB 108 (Lockyer), Chapter 1578, Statutes of
1990). The latter condition - within three years of making the
relevant connection - is called a "delayed discovery" rule.
This statute of limitations has been amended repeatedly as it
applies to third parties. However, this bill does not change
the unique application of the law with respect to third parties.
It simply extends the statute of limitations against all
defendants, including the direct perpetrator.
The policy behind statutes of limitations provides that they
"are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through
the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until
evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have
disappeared. The theory is that even if one has a just claim it
is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within
the period of limitation and the right to be free of stale
claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute
them." (3 Witkin, California Procedure Section 433, 4th Ed.)
Nonetheless, courts have acknowledged that "the need for repose
is not so overarching that the Legislature cannot by express
legislative provision allow certain actions to be brought at any
time, and it has occasionally done so." (Duty v. Abex Corp
(1989) 214 Cal.App.3rd 742, 749, citations omitted.) The United
States Supreme Court has long held that:
Statutes of limitation find their justification in
necessity and convenience rather than in logic. They
represent expedients, rather than principles... They
are by definition arbitrary, and their operation does
not discriminate against the just and the unjust
claim, or the avoidable or unavoidable delay... Their
shelter has never been regarded as what now is called
a "fundamental right"... [T]he history of pleas of
limitation shows them to be good only by legislative
grace and to be subject to a relatively large degree
of legislative control. (Chase Securities Corp. v.
Donaldson (1945) 325 United States 304, 314.)
Thus, the appropriate inquiry is whether the Legislature
believes that there are sufficient public policy reasons to
extend the statute of limitations, and whether such an extension
would maintain the protections afforded by the statute of
limitations, that is, balancing the interests of the victims
SB 924
Page 5
with the defendants' right to defend against the claim. The
author states that public policy favors extension of the statute
of limitations because of the heinousness of the act and
difficulty that victims of childhood sexual abuse have in coming
forward timely and believes that the Legislature should,
prospectively only, extend that timeframe in order to better
protect victims of this most horrendous abuse.
Last year, the Legislature passed SB 131 (Beall) of 2013, which
would have made a prior extension of the statute of limitations
against third parties retroactive and, under specified
conditions, would have revived for one year certain causes of
action that would otherwise be barred solely by the statute of
limitations. That bill applied only to private institutions.
While that bill passed the Legislature, it was vetoed by the
Governor in a very lengthy veto message. This bill seeks to
address the Governor's concerns in several important ways.
First, this bill applies the extended statute of limitations to
all parties, including, particularly, the perpetrator of the
abuse. Second, this applies only to new unlawful acts and does
not extend the statute of limitations for abuse that has already
occurred. Thus, all parties will be on notice that any new act
of childhood sexual abuse is subject to the extra-long statute
of limitations.
Finally, this bill applies the extension of the statute of
limitations to all local public entities. As the Governor noted
in his veto, the Legislature previously exempted, from the
Government Tort Claims Act, claims for childhood sexual abuse
against a local public entity, arising out of conduct occurring
on or after January 1, 2009. This bill extends that exemption
to all acts of childhood sexual abuse occurring on or after
January 1, 2015. Thus, children abused in a public school or a
private school will be able to seek the exact same relief.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0004719
SB 924
Page 6