|
|
Summary |
Text of Statute |
Commentary |
Resources |
Summary:
South Carolina
Code §15-3-555, enacted in 2001, extends the statute of limitations for
civil claims arising out of child sexual abuse to
(a) 6 years after the
person reaches 21 or
(b) 3 years from the time the victim realizes that
their injuries are caused by the child sexual abuse.
South Carolina also has a statutory discovery
doctrine which allows claims to be brought within 3 years of the
reasonable date of discovery. (See Commentary).
Text:
S.C. Code
Ann. §15-3-555. Statute of limitations
for action based on sexual abuse or incest.
(A) An action to recover damages for injury to a person arising out of
an act of sexual abuse or incest must be commenced within six years
after the person becomes twenty-one years of age or within three years
from the time of discovery by the person of the injury and the causal
relationship between the injury and the sexual abuse or incest,
whichever occurs later.
(B) Parental immunity is not a defense against claims based on sexual
abuse or incest that occurred before, on, or after this section's
effective date.
HISTORY: 2001 Act No. 102, § 3.
S.C. Code Ann. §15-3-535.
Limitation on actions commenced under Section 15-3-530(5).
Except as to actions initiated under Section 15-3-545, all actions
initiated under Section 15-3-530(5) must be commenced within three years
after the person knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should
have known that he had a cause of action.
Commentary:
Retroactivity. A new statute cannot be used to
revive a claim that had expired prior to its passage pursuant to the due
process clause of the South Carolina constitution.
Doe v. Crooks; 364 S.C.
349, 613 S.E.2d 536 (S.C. 2005).
A major case interpreting the discovery provision
of the South Carolina discovery statute of limitations is
Moriarty
v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God, 341 S.C. 320, 534 S.E.2d 672
(S.C. 2000). Moriarity held that the discovery rule may suspend the
statute of limitations during the period in which a victim
psychologically represses her memory of sexual abuse. When conflicting
evidence is presented as to the discovery issue, the issue becomes a
question for the jury. Significantly, the Court held that an objective
standard applies to the victim; namely, whether a reasonable person in
the circumstances of the victim would have been "put on notice" as to
the existence of the claim. The Court also ruled that when a case
involves repressed memory, expert testimony is required to prove both
the abuse and the repressed memory.
Resources:
Revised
09/03/2007. Copyright Susan
K. Smith 1996-2002
|
