John Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee
734 N.W.2d 827, 303 Wis. 2d 34, 2007 WI 95 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for negligent supervision is derivative of an employee's underlying tort and accrues for statute of limitations purposes at the time of the tortious act. In contrast, a claim for fraud is an independent tort, and its cause of action accrues only when the plaintiff discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the fraud.
Facts:
- From 1973 to 1976, a Roman Catholic priest, Siegfried Widera, sexually abused John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3 when they were children.
- Prior to this abuse, Widera had been criminally convicted of sexually molesting another child, a fact known to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
- After Widera's conviction, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee transferred him to a new parish in Delavan, Wisconsin, where he then molested the Doe plaintiffs.
- While in Delavan, the Archdiocese was informed that Widera had molested another altar boy and noted internally it would 'try to keep the lid on the thing, so no police record would be made.'
- In 1976, the Archdiocese transferred Widera to California, instructing him to tell parishioners he was going on vacation.
- In approximately 1982, another Roman Catholic priest, Franklyn Becker, sexually abused Charles Linneman while he was a child.
- The Archdiocese of Milwaukee knew that Becker had a history of sexually molesting children before he abused Linneman.
- The plaintiffs alleged they did not discover the Archdiocese's knowledge of the priests' histories of abuse until 2004 or shortly before filing their lawsuits in 2005.
Procedural Posture:
- John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Charles Linneman filed complaints against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in Milwaukee County Circuit Court (trial court).
- The Archdiocese filed a motion to dismiss the complaints, arguing the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
- The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss all claims as time-barred.
- The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's dismissal, holding that both the negligent supervision and fraud claims were barred.
- The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For statute of limitations purposes, does a claim against an employer for negligent supervision accrue at the time of the employee's underlying tortious act, while a separate claim for fraud against the same employer accrues only when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the facts constituting the fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Patience Drake Roggensack
Yes. A claim for negligent supervision accrues at the time of the underlying tort because it is a derivative claim, while a claim for fraud is an independent tort that accrues when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the facts constituting the fraud. The court's precedent in Pritzlaff and BBB Doe establishes that negligent supervision claims are derivative of the priests' underlying sexual assaults, meaning the statute of limitations begins to run no later than the date of the last assault. These claims are therefore time-barred. However, a fraud claim is an independent intentional tort. The plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded fraud by alleging the Archdiocese's act of placing known abusers in parishes constituted an affirmative misrepresentation that the priests were safe. The statute of limitations for fraud includes a discovery rule, and the question of when the plaintiffs should have discovered this fraud is a matter of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
Concurring/dissenting - Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson
Partially. While the fraud claim is an independent tort subject to the discovery rule, the negligent supervision claim should also be treated as an independent tort, not a derivative one. The majority incorrectly classifies negligent supervision as a 'derivative' claim, contrary to precedent like Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which established it as an independent tort focusing on the employer's own negligence. The cases the majority relies on, Pritzlaff and BBB Doe, were decided before the court officially recognized the tort and relied on assumptions, making them non-controlling. Because negligent supervision is a separate wrong committed by the employer, its statute of limitations should also be subject to a discovery rule, and the claim should not have been dismissed.
Analysis:
This decision creates a crucial distinction in Wisconsin law between negligent supervision and fraud claims against institutions for employee misconduct. By classifying negligent supervision as 'derivative,' the court severely restricts the timeline for such claims, tying their accrual to the employee's act, regardless of when the employer's negligence became discoverable. Conversely, treating fraud as an 'independent' tort with its own discovery rule provides a separate, and potentially much later, path for holding institutions accountable for concealing knowledge of an employee's dangerousness. This ruling pressures future plaintiffs to frame their cases around fraud or active concealment to overcome statute of limitations hurdles that would otherwise bar a direct negligence claim.
