S.V. v. R.V.
933 S.W.2d 1 (1996)
Rule of Law:
For the discovery rule to defer the accrual of a cause of action, the injury must be both inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable. A claim of childhood sexual abuse based on repressed memories that are recovered after the statute of limitations has run is not objectively verifiable by the victim's testimony and related expert opinions alone.
Facts:
- Beginning in childhood and lasting until she was seventeen, R.'s father, S., allegedly subjected her to repeated sexual abuse.
- Growing up, R. considered her relationship with her father to be distant and cold, while her relationship with her mother, B., was very close.
- In high school and her freshman year of college, R. showed a specific interest in the topic of incest, writing term papers on the subject.
- In May 1990, when R. was 19, her mother B. revealed for the first time that she too had been sexually abused as a child and had repressed the memories.
- In November 1990, about a month after her twentieth birthday, R. began to recover memories of the alleged abuse by her father, S., during dreams and therapy sessions.
- R.'s memories of the abuse, which she had previously repressed entirely, continued to surface over time, leading her to recall numerous specific incidents.
- S. denied all allegations of abuse, and there were no eyewitnesses or contemporaneous physical evidence of the alleged acts.
Procedural Posture:
- R. intervened in her parents' divorce proceeding in the district court, filing a personal injury suit against her father, S.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of R.'s presentation of evidence, S. moved for a directed verdict, arguing the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and there was no evidence of abuse.
- The district court granted S.'s motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment in his favor.
- R. appealed to the court of appeals.
- A divided court of appeals reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
- S. (as Petitioner) sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 apply to toll the statute of limitations for a childhood sexual abuse claim based on repressed memories where the only evidence of the abuse is the victim's testimony and expert opinions derived from that testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Hecht, J.
No. For the discovery rule to defer the accrual of a cause of action, the alleged wrongful act and resulting injury must be inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable. While assuming the injury here was inherently undiscoverable due to the nature of trauma and repression, the Court holds that it is not objectively verifiable. Objective verification requires evidence such as a confession, a criminal conviction, contemporaneous medical records, or an objective eyewitness account. The Court reasons that recovered memories, and expert testimony based upon them, are not sufficient for objective verification because the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the reliability of such memories or the techniques used to retrieve them. Relying on such evidence alone would undermine the purpose of statutes of limitations, which is to prevent litigation of stale or fraudulent claims.
Dissenting - Owen, J.
Yes. The discovery rule should apply because the majority's rigid 'objectively verifiable' standard ignores precedent where limitations were deferred in cases involving fraud, fraudulent concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty without such strict proof. The dissent argues that it is the abuser's own wrongful act that causes the victim's memory repression, and the abuser should not be allowed to benefit from this by using the statute of limitations as a shield. The victim's direct testimony, supported by the opinions of reputable mental health experts, should be sufficient corroboration to allow a jury to resolve the factual conflicts, just as it would if the suit had been filed within the standard limitations period.
Concurring - Gonzalez, J.
No. The concurring justice agrees with the Court's judgment but writes separately to make two additional points. First, the trial court's directed verdict was correct because the plaintiff improperly pleaded the cause of action as negligence when the alleged conduct—sexual abuse—is clearly an intentional tort. Second, the expert testimony regarding repressed memories constitutes 'junk science' that does not meet the standards for admissibility of scientific evidence established in E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Robinson, as the theory is untestable, subjective, and not generally accepted in the scientific community.
Concurring - Cornyn, J.
No. The concurring justice agrees with the Court's judgment but argues that the central issue demonstrates the unworkability of the admissibility standard for expert testimony established in Robinson. The justice contends that the factors for determining the reliability of 'hard science' are ill-suited for evaluating evidence from behavioral sciences like psychology. The Court's struggle with the scientific uncertainty surrounding repressed memory highlights the problems trial courts face when trying to apply a one-size-fits-all test to different types of expert knowledge.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Texas by creating a strict, two-part test for the application of the discovery rule: the injury must be both inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable. The holding severely limits the ability of plaintiffs to bring claims based on repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse, effectively requiring external, corroborating evidence for the discovery rule to apply. This decision prioritizes the policy of repose and the prevention of stale claims over allowing claims that the Court deems to be based on scientifically unsettled evidence, thus placing a high evidentiary burden on survivors of such abuse who seek to file suit after the standard limitations period has expired.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: S.V. v. R.V. (1996)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"