|
|
Summary |
Text of Statute |
Commentary |
Resources |
Summary:
Oregon victims may bring suit
- within 6 years of age 18, or
- within 3 years of
discovery of the causal connection between the injury and the abuse.
Text:
Or.
Rev. Stat. § 12.117 (1995 Rev) Child Abuse
(1) Notwithstanding ORS 12.110, 12.115 or 12.160,
an action based on conduct that constitutes child abuse or conduct
knowingly allowing, permitting or encouraging child abuse accruing while
the person who is entitled to bring the action is under 18 years of age
shall be commenced not more than six years after that person attains 18
years of age, or if the injured person has not discovered the injury or
the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse, nor in the
exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the injury or the
causal connection between the injury and the child abuse, not more than
three years from the date the injured person discovers or in the
exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the injury or the
causal connection between the child abuse and the injury, whichever
period is longer.
(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section, "child abuse" means any
of the following:
(a) Intentional conduct by an adult that results in:
(A) Any physical injury to a child; or
(B) Any mental injury to a child which results in observable and
substantial impairment of the child's mental or psychological ability to
function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture
of the child;
(b) Rape of a child, which includes but is not limited to rape, sodomy,
unlawful sexual penetration and incest, as those acts are defined in ORS
chapter 163;
(c) Sexual abuse, as defined in ORS chapter 163, when the victim is a
child; or
(d) Sexual exploitation of a child, including but not limited to:
(A) Conduct constituting violation of ORS 163.435 and any other conduct
which allows, employs, authorizes, permits, induces or encourages a
child to engage in the performing for people to observe or the
photographing, filming, tape recording or other exhibition which, in
whole or in part, depicts sexual conduct or contact; and
(B) Allowing, permitting, encouraging or hiring a child to engage in
prostitution, as defined in ORS chapter 167.
(3) Nothing in this section creates a new cause of action or enlarges
any existing cause of action.
Laws 1989, c. 643, §§ 2,3; Laws 1991, c. 386, § 4; Laws 1991, c. 932, §
1; Laws 1993, c. 18, § 5; Laws 1993, c. 296, § 1; Laws 1993, c. 622, §
2.
Commentary:
Retroactivity and Revival: "The amendments to ORS
12.117 by section 1 of this Act apply to all causes of action whether
arising before, on or after the effective date of this Act [July 8,
1993], and shall act to revive any cause of action barred by the
operation of ORS 12.117 (1991 Edition). Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any cause of action that was dismissed or adjudicated
before the effective date of this Act based upon that provision of ORS
12.117 (1991 Edition) requiring that an action be commenced on or before
the plaintiff attains 40 years of age may be brought within one year
after the effective date of this Act as though the original proceeding
had never been commenced."
In
Jasmin v. Ross, 33 P.3d 725 (Or. Ct. App.
2001), the Oregon Court of Appeals held that an individual who, as an
adult, first discovered the connection between her psychological
problems and past sexual abuse, timely filed her claim under the state's
delayed discovery exception to the statute of limitations. The exception
provides, in part, that an individual injured by sexual abuse may bring
suit up to three years from the date of discovery of the causal
connection between the injury and the abuse.
In
Lourim v.
Swensen, the Court ruled that the statute applies to third parties
who knowingly allowed, permitted or encouraged child abuse and therefore
there was no recourse against the Boy Scouts of America because they had
no notice that a volunteer was committing acts of sexual abuse on
Scouts. 936 P.2d 1011, 147 Or. App. 425, review allowed 950 P.2d 893,
326 Or. 133, affirmed in part, reversed in part 977 P.2d 1157, 328 Or.
380 (1999). Similarly, in
Fearing v. Bucher,
the court ruled that the extended statute of limitations was not
available to bring action against an archdiocese for "mere negligent
hiring, retention and supervision." 936 P.2d 1023, 147 Or. App. 446,
review allowed 950 P.2d 893, 326 Or. 133, affirmed in part, reversed in
part 977 P.2d 1163, 328 Or. 367 (1997).
Resources:
Revised
09/03/2007.
Copyright Susan K. Smith. All rights reserved.
|
