|
|
Summary |
Text of Statute |
Commentary |
Resources |
Summary:
Mississippi victims must file their
claims
within 3 years of the act
constituting sexual abuse under § 15-1-49
within 3 years of attaining the
age of majority under the "minor savings statute" under § 15-1-59
within 3 years of the victim's
release from imprisonment under § 15-1-57
The Court has declined to apply the
discovery statute to cases of delayed realization of the connection
between the abuse and the victim's psychological injury, however, the
issue has not been presented in the context of extensive memory
repression. The standards for proving fraudulent concealment of a claim
is so high as to be impracticable.
Text:
§ 15-1-49. Limitations applicable to actions not otherwise
specifically provided for.
(1) All actions for which no other period of limitation is
prescribed shall be commenced within three (3) years next after the
cause of such action accrued, and not after.
(2) In actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed
and which involve latent injury or disease, the cause of action does
not accrue until the plaintiff has discovered, or by reasonable
diligence should have discovered, the injury.
(3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall apply to
all pending and subsequently filed actions.
Sources: Codes, 1880, § 2669; 1892, § 2737; Laws, 1906, § 3097;
Hemingway's 1917, § 2461; Laws, 1930, § 2292; Laws, 1942, § 722;
Laws, 1989, ch. 311, § 3; Laws, 1990, ch. 348, § 1, eff from and
after passage (approved March 12, 1990).
§ 15-1-57. Statute of limitations not to run when person
prohibited to sue.
When any person shall be prohibited by law, or restrained or
enjoined by the order, decree, or process of any court in this state
from commencing or prosecuting any action or remedy, the time during
which such person shall be so prohibited, enjoined or restrained,
shall not be computed as any part of the period of time limited by
this chapter for the commencement of such action.
Sources: Codes, 1857, ch. 57, art. 26; 1871, § 2170; 1880, § 2691;
1892, § 2758a; Laws, 1906, § 3120; Hemingway's 1917, § 2484; Laws,
1930, § 2307; Laws, 1942, § 737.
§ 15-1-59. Saving in favor of persons under disabilities.
If any person entitled to bring any of the personal actions
mentioned shall, at the time at which the cause of action accrued,
be under the disability of infancy or unsoundness of mind, he may
bring the actions within the times in this chapter respectively
limited, after his disability shall be removed as provided by law.
However, the saving in favor of persons under disability of
unsoundness of mind shall never extend longer than twenty-one (21)
years.
Sources: Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 57, art. 1 (7); 1857, ch. 57,
art. 12; 1871, § 2156; 1880, § 2677; 1892, § 2746; Laws, 1906, §
3106; Hemingway's 1917, § 2470; Laws, 1930, § 2308; Laws, 1942, §
738; Laws, 1983, ch. 482, § 2, eff from and after July 1, 1983.
§ 15-1-67. Effect of fraudulent concealment of cause of action
If a person liable to any personal action shall fraudulently
conceal the cause of action from the knowledge of the person
entitled thereto, the cause of action shall be deemed to have first
accrued at, and not before, the time at which such fraud shall be,
or with reasonable diligence might have been, first known or
discovered.
Sources: Codes, 1857, ch. 57, art. 14; 1871, § 2158; 1880, § 2679;
1892, § 2749; Laws, 1906, § 3109; Hemingway's 1917, § 2473; Laws,
1930, § 2312; Laws, 1942, § 742.
Commentary:
The Mississippi Court of Appeals has applied the State's discovery
and fraudulent concealment provisions very narrowly. For example, in
Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson,
947 So.2d 983 (2006), the court ruled that the because the acts are
physical, a reasonable person is aware of them when they occur. The
Plaintiff's claim that she was unaware that the acts were abusive and
did not connect the acts to her emotional problems were rejected by the
Court. In addition, the Court imposes a "reasonable diligence"
requirement upon the victim. The Court also ruled that the victim failed
to demonstrate that the Defendants participated in any affirmative acts
to prevent discovery of the claim or that she exercised due diligence in
an attempt to discover the claim.
The standard for disability tolling is very high in Mississippi. For
example, in Rockwell v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., the Court ruled
that It is unnecessary for a party to show formal adjudication of
incompetence, however, the claimant must prove that he or she "lacked
the requisite understanding for handling his legal affairs." 710 So.2d
388, (Miss. 1998).
Resources:
Mississippi Statutes
Mississippi Coalition Against Sexual Abuse
|