MGL c. 260 s. 2A Statute of Limitations for Tort Actions
MGL c. 260 s. 4C Statute of Limitations for Sexual Abuse of Minors (Civil Cases)
MGL c.260, s.4C-1/2
Negligent supervision or conduct causing or contributing to the sexual abuse of minor by another person
Doe v. Creighton, 439 Mass. 281 (2003)
"A plaintiff who brings suit beyond the normal statutory limitations period may not reach a jury simply by presenting evidence that sexual abuse took place. In order to survive a motion for summary judgment in those circumstances, a 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."
Koe v. Mercer, 450 Mass. 97 (2007)
Once a plaintiff knows of the connection, the statute of limitations begins to run, even if he does not know the "full extent or nature of [the] injury."
Phinney v. Morgan, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 202 (1995) review denied 421 Mass. 1104 (1995)
The adult plaintiffs claimed they were harmed by their mother's failure to protect them from their father's sexual abuse while they were minors. The court did extend the "discovery rule" to non-perpetrators but concluded plaintiffs were still time barred.
Riley v. Presnell, 409 Mass. 239 (1991)
The court decided that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows or reasonably could have known that he may have suffered injury due to the psychotherapist's conduct (discovery rule). The question of when a plaintiff should have known about his cause of action is one of fact.
"Limitation of Actions," 51 Am. Jur. 2d Limitation of Actions § 151
"Running of Limitations Against Action for Civil Damages for Sexual Abuse of Child," 9 ALR5th 321
|Last updated:||September 4, 2018|