affirming tolling of statute of limitations, notwithstanding plaintiff's failure to provide expert testimony to support delayed discovery of alleged sexual abuse, because defendant never challenged adequacy of plaintiff's case on that ground
Summary of this case from Melissa v. Gelpke1989.
On November 28, 1990, review dismissed and cause remanded to Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District.
affirming tolling of statute of limitations, notwithstanding plaintiff's failure to provide expert testimony to support delayed discovery of alleged sexual abuse, because defendant never challenged adequacy of plaintiff's case on that ground
Summary of this case from Melissa v. Gelpkestating that if plaintiff were entitled to a discovery rule hearing, he or she would have to present competent expert opinion testimony "as to the existence of specific psychological processes such as repression or disassociation"
Summary of this case from Dattoli v. YanelliIn Mary D. v. John D., 264 Cal.Rptr. 633 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 1989), review dismissed, ___ Cal.3d ___, 275 Cal.Rptr. 380, 800 P.2d 858 (1990), the court held that where a minor victim of sexual abuse repressed the memory of the events while a minor as a direct result of the tortious conduct, "it would be most unfair to the plaintiff not to toll the statute" and accordingly applied the discovery rule to such a claim.
Summary of this case from Baily v. LewisIn Mary D. v. John D., 216 Cal.App.3d 285, 264 Cal.Rptr. 633 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 1989), review dismissed, ___ Cal.3d ___, 275 Cal.Rptr. 380, 800 P.2d 858 (1990), the court held that where a minor victim of sexual abuse repressed the memory of the events while a minor as a direct result of the tortious conduct, "it would be most unfair to the plaintiff not to toll the statute" and accordingly applied the discovery rule to such a claim.
Summary of this case from Seto v. WillitsFull title:Mary D. v. John D
Court:Court of Appeal of California
Date published: Jan 1, 1989
A number of courts have applied the discovery rule to type 2 cases. In Mary D. v. John D., 216 Cal.App.3d…
O'Neal v. Division of Family ServicesBut we note that some courts have recognized the distinction between cases where the victim is aware of the…