In Rubenstein v. Doe 1, published August 28, 2017, the California Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeal decision that the plaintiff had complied with the Government Claims Act deadline to present a timely claim. The plaintiff alleged that in 1993-1994, when she was a high school student, her coach, an employee of the defendant district, sexually molested her. She presented a claim for damages to the district in 2012, when she was 34. She alleged that latent memories of the sexual abuse resurfaced in 2012. She contended that the claim was timely. The Government Claims Act requires that a personal injury claim for damages be presented to the defendant public entity no later than six months after accrual. Under Government Code section 901, the date of accrual for purposes of the Government Claims Act is the accrual date that would pertain under the statute of limitations applicable to a dispute between private litigants. The plaintiff contended that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 creates the date of accrual for claims alleging failure to prevent childhood molestation. Section 340.1, as it existed at the time of the molestation and as subsequently amended between 1990 and 2002, expanded the statute of limitations for childhood sexual molestation. It extended the deadline to sue to the plaintiff's 26th birthday; then, in 2002 while the plaintiff was still under 26, it allowed suits after the 26th birthday if the defendant was on notice of unlawful sexual conduct by an employee and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the misconduct.
The Supreme Court majority concluded that section 340.1 did not set the accrual date for childhood sexual molestation claims. Instead, it tolled the statute of limitation for suing for injuries from molestation. That does not affect the time to present a claim. The cause of action accrues at the time the abuse occurs. The court based this conclusion on the wording of the statute; on case law interpreting similar statutes; on the policy behind the claim statutes, in preventing late claims that endanger public entity fiscal planning and result in difficulties in investigation or preventing future harm; and on the 2008 passage of Government Code section 905, subdivision (m), which eliminates the claim requirement for childhood molestation claims, but only for conduct occurring after 2009. The limitation on the amendment shows a legislative intention to limit public entity exposure for molestation claims. The court also rejected the argument that section 340.1 provided a delayed discovery standard of accrual for molestation claims. The court disapproved the decision in K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229.
Justice Werdegar dissented. She opined that the majority's decision immunized public entities from liability for pre-2009 molestation claims.
Comments