Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; January 30, 1998; Washington; State Appellate Court
John and Jody Bales, along with their son E.R.B., appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit against Rick Shaw, a minister, the New Life Fellowship Church of God, and the Pacific Northwest Church of God State Office. They allege that Shaw sexually abused E.R.B. from 1985 to 1989 and that the church entities negligently hired and supervised Shaw. The trial court dismissed their claims based on the statute of limitations, RCW 4.16.080(2), which the appellate court affirmed.
Shaw was hired by the Local Church in April 1985, and the Bales family had been members since 1980. By summer 1985, they had developed a close friendship with Shaw, who later helped Jody Bales secure a job as church secretary. E.R.B. claims the abuse began in the summer of 1985 during a camping trip when he was 14 and continued for four years in various locations, including the church and Shaw's home. E.R.B. testified about severe emotional distress leading to multiple suicide attempts, exacerbated by Shaw's manipulation and threats to keep the abuse secret. E.R.B. did not disclose the abuse to his parents until July 1993, due to feelings of fear and humiliation instilled by Shaw.
E.R.B. disclosed instances of sexual abuse to multiple individuals before formally informing his parents in July 1993. He confided in friends Greg Harrison (1989), Jesse Stockard (1990), and Bruce Greene (before July 1993), as well as Donna Shaw and Gary Cowles (1992), without naming Rick Shaw as the abuser. E.R.B. mentioned to his parents in 1988 that he had been gang-raped at Montgomery Ward, a claim he later recanted. Despite this, his parents, John and Jody Bales, grew increasingly worried about his well-being, suspecting Shaw as the perpetrator. Concerns regarding Shaw's behavior dated back to 1985, with John Bales reporting inappropriate actions to Pastor Vaughn Matthews and Jody expressing discomfort over Shaw's relationship with her son to her counselor, Mary Stone.
Following E.R.B.'s false claim of gang-rape, the Baleses became convinced that he had been molested. They did not confront him directly about their suspicions, believing he had already communicated his distress. On July 12, 1990, they filed a formal complaint against Shaw with the Local Church, including an incident report outlining their concerns and prior discussions regarding E.R.B.'s mental health, including a suicide attempt. The report indicated that E.R.B. had described inappropriate behavior by Shaw, prompting the Baleses to seek action from church authorities, who initially required proof before proceeding with an investigation.
Rick displayed passive behavior during a confrontation regarding accusations against him, with Donna primarily defending him. Despite the serious context, Rick did not defend himself or deny the accusations, which was perceived as unusual. It was revealed that he had previously counseled E.R.B. following a suicide attempt, which had not been communicated to the Baleses. The Baleses opted not to inform E.R.B. about a Local Church Board of Inquiry hearing concerning Rick, nor did they invite him to testify, leading to no action taken against Shaw due to E.R.B.'s absence.
Dr. Kevin McGovern, a clinical psychologist, assessed the impact of sexual abuse on E.R.B., concluding that he was unaware of the injuries he sustained until July 1993, despite the abuse occurring from 1985 to 1989. On September 13, 1993, the Baleses filed a lawsuit against Rick Shaw for sexual molestation and against the Local Church and State Office for negligent hiring and supervision. They claimed emotional distress and breach of pastoral privilege. However, on September 15, 1995, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the claims against the Local Church and State Office due to the statute of limitations, but not against Shaw, citing a special statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse victims.
On appeal, the Baleses contended that Dr. McGovern's testimony indicated a genuine issue of material fact regarding E.R.B.’s awareness of his injuries and that there were factual disputes about when the Baleses had enough knowledge to trigger the statute of limitations. The appellate court would review the summary judgment under the same criteria as the trial court, focusing on whether there were genuine issues of material fact and considering all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Summary judgment is warranted when evidence allows for only one reasonable conclusion. A three-year statute of limitations applies to the plaintiffs' claims, with exceptions for minors whose limitations are tolled until they reach 18 years of age. E.R.B. contends that the common law discovery rule should toll his claims against the Local Church and State Office until he fully understood his injuries and their connection to Shaw's abuse. Although he acknowledges that RCW 4.16.340 does not apply to his claims, he seeks to apply the discovery rule similarly. The Baleses maintain that their claims were tolled until July 1993, when E.R.B. disclosed the abuse to them.
RCW 4.16.340 allows claims for childhood sexual abuse to be filed within three years of discovering the injury or its cause, with tolling until the victim turns 18. However, this statute only applies to claims against the abuser. All three plaintiffs filed their claims in 1993, over three years after the last incident of abuse in 1989. The trial court determined that RCW 4.16.340 tolled the statute of limitations solely for E.R.B.'s claim against Shaw, a finding that remains unchallenged. Consequently, the statute does not toll E.R.B.'s claims against the State and Local Churches or any claims from his parents. The defendants assert that the common law discovery rule is inapplicable to the plaintiffs' claims, and even if it were, the Baleses' claims would still be time-barred. The court agrees that, apart from E.R.B.'s action against Shaw, the claims are indeed time-barred.
A cause of action typically accrues at the time the tortious act or omission occurs. However, under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations may begin later if the plaintiff could not have discovered the factual basis for the claim through due diligence. The key factor is the factual basis, not the legal one; accrual occurs when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of relevant facts, regardless of whether they recognize those facts as establishing a legal cause of action. To invoke the discovery rule, the plaintiff must demonstrate that earlier discovery of the relevant facts was impossible. The jury decides if the plaintiff has met this burden unless the facts have only one reasonable interpretation. The discovery rule aims to protect the defendant from stale claims while ensuring that aggrieved parties can seek recovery before their right to judicial relief expires. The statute of limitations starts when the claimant reasonably suspects a wrongful act has occurred, as they can then file suit and use civil discovery to gather necessary evidence.
In the case of E.R.B.'s claims against the State Office and Local Church, the common law discovery rule cannot be expanded as E.R.B. argued. Prior to the enactment of RCW 4.16.340, Washington courts had not extended the discovery rule to sexual abuse cases. The trial court found that E.R.B., even as a minor, was aware of the abuse, knowing he was molested by Rick Shaw, recognizing it as wrong, experiencing substantial harm, and understanding that Shaw was a church minister. Consequently, E.R.B. cannot leverage Dr. McGovern's testimony regarding his understanding of injuries to contest the findings against the Local Church and State Office.
Dr. McGovern's opinion does not toll the statute of limitations, which began under the discovery rule when E.R.B. either knew of the harm or turned 18, both events occurring over three years prior to E.R.B.'s lawsuit against the Local Church and State Office. The statute of limitations commenced on February 14, 1989, when E.R.B. turned 18.
In relation to Jody and John Bales’ claims against all three defendants, the Washington State Supreme Court has established that the common law discovery rule can toll the statute of limitations when a defendant conceals information that prevents a plaintiff from immediately knowing of their injuries. The application of the discovery rule is a judicial policy determination that balances the interests of statutes of limitations against the potential unfairness of barring valid claims.
The discovery rule has two primary categories: one where defendants fraudulently conceal material facts from plaintiffs, and another where the nature of the injury makes it extremely difficult for the plaintiff to discover the factual elements of their claim within the limitation period. The Baleses argue that the statute of limitations did not begin until July 1993, when E.R.B. disclosed the molestation, asserting they could not have learned of their causes of action prior to that.
While evidence indicates that Shaw concealed information from the Baleses and the Church, there is no indication that the Local Church or State Office engaged in concealment. The statute of limitations starts when the injured party knows or should know the factual elements of a cause of action, regardless of the ability to conclusively prove the wrongful act. The Baleses’ statute of limitations would have begun no later than July 1990, when they submitted an Incident Report and letter to the State Office and Local Church, indicating they had a concrete belief that Shaw abused their son and that the Local Church and State Office shared some responsibility.
The Baleses acknowledge the existence of specific facts regarding the abuse of their son, E.R.B., by Rick Shaw but claim they lacked sufficient evidence to initiate a lawsuit due to E.R.B. not coming forward. Despite this, evidence from a 1990 letter and an Incident Report detailed instances of abuse, and the Baleses expressed concerns as early as 1988 about potential sexual abuse by Shaw. The court found that the Baleses failed to demonstrate that they could not have known about their causes of action against Shaw, the Local Church, and the State Office prior to August 27, 1990. Testimony indicated that Jody Bales did not need to directly inquire about the abuse since E.R.B. had communicated it indirectly. The trial court concluded that by July 1990, the Baleses had reasonable suspicions of wrongful acts and had communicated these concerns to church authorities and the state office, noting their distress over the inadequate response and its impact on their son.
Additionally, the Baleses' argument on appeal regarding a fiduciary relationship between Shaw, the Local Church, and the State Office—asserting it would toll the statute of limitations—was not raised in the trial court and thus was not considered. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, with judges Seinfeld and Armstrong concurring. Various notes clarify applicable statutes of limitations, the discovery rule, and case law relevant to the issues discussed.
