Doe v. Maskell

Court of Appeals of Maryland
342 Md. 684, 679 A.2d 1087, 1996 Md. LEXIS 68 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations in civil actions based on allegedly repressed and later recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse, as the court considers the psychological process of repression legally indistinguishable from ordinary forgetting.

Facts:

From 1967 to 1971, Jane Doe was a student at Seton Keough High School, a parochial school in Baltimore.
From 1968 to 1972, Jane Roe was a student at the same school.
During their respective tenures, both Doe and Roe were individually referred for counseling to the school chaplain, Father A. Joseph Maskell.
Both plaintiffs allege that Father Maskell subjected them to repeated and severe sexual, physical, and psychological abuse during these counseling sessions.
The alleged abuse continued until each woman graduated from the high school.
At some point after the abuse ended, both plaintiffs claim they ceased to recall the abuse due to a psychological process they term 'repression.'
In 1992, both plaintiffs began to 'recover' memories of the alleged abuse they had suffered.
During the years between the alleged abuse and the recovery of their memories, both plaintiffs managed their personal and business affairs competently.

Procedural Posture:

Jane Doe and Jane Roe filed separate lawsuits in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (a trial court) on August 24, 1994, against Father Maskell, Seton Keough High School, and other related parties.
The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
After a hearing that included expert testimony, the trial court judge granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Special Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
Before the intermediate appellate court could hear the case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) granted a writ of certiorari to hear the case directly.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the discovery rule toll the three-year statute of limitations for a civil action when a plaintiff claims to have repressed, and later recovered, memories of alleged childhood sexual abuse?

Opinions:

Majority - Karwacki, Judge.

No, the discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations in cases of allegedly repressed and recovered memories. The court holds that the discovery rule applies when a plaintiff is 'blamelessly ignorant' of their cause of action, but it must determine how the rule operates in the novel context of repressed memories. The critical legal question is whether there is a meaningful distinction between ordinary 'forgetting' and psychological 'repression.' After reviewing expert testimony and scientific literature, the court is unconvinced that repression exists as a phenomenon separate from the normal process of forgetting. Because a plaintiff who merely forgot about their cause of action would be time-barred, and repression is scientifically and legally indistinguishable from forgetting, claims based on repressed memories are also barred. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' alternative argument that their condition constituted a 'mental incompetence' disability under § 5-201, finding the evidence showed they were competent and able to manage their affairs during the intervening years.

Analysis:

This decision establishes that Maryland courts will not extend the common law discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations for claims based on repressed memories. By grounding its decision in a lack of scientific consensus on the validity of repression as a distinct phenomenon, the court signaled a reluctance to create judicial exceptions to statutes of limitation based on contested psychological theories. This ruling prioritizes the legislative policy of repose for defendants over creating a judicial remedy for plaintiffs whose alleged injuries are not recalled for decades, effectively closing the courthouse doors to many such historical abuse claims unless the legislature creates a specific statutory exception.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Doe v. Maskell (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"