Tort – Discovery rule – Statute of limitations

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff alleged that the defendant raped her in 2015, later causing her to suffer gastrointestinal dysfunction, a judge’s decision to dismiss the complaint as untimely must be reversed under the discovery rule.

“The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violently raped her in 2015, later causing her to suffer gastrointestinal dysfunction. In 2020, she was diagnosed with an abnormal contraction of her pelvic floor due to the rapes; she underwent surgery including the removal of her entire colon. She asserted claims for battery and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A judge allowed the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that because the plaintiff knew in 2015 that she had been injured by the rapes, the statute of limitations began to run in 2015, making the plaintiff’s 2023 lawsuit untimely. We reverse that order, vacate the judgment, and remand. …

“It was not until February 27, 2020 — four years and five months after the rapes — that the plaintiff was told that her pelvic floor was not working properly, resulting in ‘unspecified constipation’ for which she was referred to physical therapy. On April 28, 2020, she was diagnosed with ‘Outlet Disfunction caused by abnormal contraction of the pelvic floor due to trauma of the sexual assault(s)’ by the defendant. The plaintiff underwent tests, treatments, and surgeries due to her injuries, including the full removal of her colon. The complaint was filed on February 8, 2023. …

“General Laws c. 260, §2A, provides that actions of tort shall be commenced only within three years ‘after the cause of action accrues.’ ‘Generally, under our discovery rule, a claim accrues and the statute of limitations clock commences when a plaintiff knows, or reasonably should have known, “that she has been harmed or may have been harmed by the defendant’s conduct.”’ Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 465 Mass. 411, 449 (2013), quoting Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., 408 Mass. 204, 205-206 (1990). Put another way, courts ‘require that a plaintiff have (1) knowledge or sufficient notice that she was harmed and (2) knowledge or sufficient notice of what the cause of harm was.’ …

“The plaintiff knew the defendant raped her in September 2015; one may infer from the allegations in the complaint that she (1) was twice ‘violently raped,’ and (2) underwent a rape examination that showed some injuries. But those are not the injuries for which she sued, and ‘the claim does not accrue until that particular disease is manifested.’ Evans, 465 Mass. at 449. It was not until later that the plaintiff’s gastrointestinal symptoms manifested and not until April 2020 that those symptoms were linked to the rapes.

“Unless the plaintiff ‘reasonably should have known’ earlier that her gastrointestinal symptoms resulted from the rapes, we cannot say the complaint was untimely under the discovery rule. …

“Because this case is in its infancy, the record is devoid of information that speaks to this question. … As the case advances, the plaintiff will bear ‘the burden of proving both an actual lack of causal knowledge and the objective reasonableness of that lack of knowledge.’ … The plaintiff ‘must show that the nature of the abuse was such that it would cause an objectively reasonable person to fail to recognize the causal connection between it and the injuries that it caused.’ … We make no guess as to whether, when the evidence is developed, the plaintiff will be able to do this. We opine only that the complaint, when read favorably to the plaintiff, is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. …

“Accordingly, we reverse the order allowing the motion to dismiss, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings.”

C.C. v. B.L. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-136-24) (6 pages) (Docket No. 23-P-1395) (Dec. 23, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.