Tyson v. Tyson
727 P.2d 226, 107 Wash. 2d 72 (1986)
Rule of Law:
The discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations for an intentional tort claim when a plaintiff alleges to have repressed the memory of the incident for the entire statutory period, because such claims lack the objective, verifiable evidence needed to outweigh the risks of stale claims.
Facts:
- Nancy Tyson was born on April 20, 1957.
- From 1960 through 1969, when Nancy Tyson was between the ages of 3 and 11, her father, Dwight Robert Tyson, allegedly committed multiple acts of sexual assault upon her.
- Tyson alleges that the trauma from the sexual assaults caused her to suppress all conscious memory of the events.
- In 1983, at the age of 26, Tyson entered psychological therapy.
- During her therapy sessions in 1983, Tyson's memory of the alleged acts of sexual abuse returned.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Tyson filed a complaint against her father, Dwight Robert Tyson, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- Dwight Robert Tyson moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The United States District Court, a federal trial court, certified a question of state law to the Supreme Court of Washington for resolution.
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, which tolls the statute of limitations until a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered a cause of action, apply to intentional torts where the victim has blocked the incident from her conscious memory for the entire duration of the statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, J.
No. The discovery rule does not apply to intentional tort claims based on repressed memories. Statutes of limitation exist to bar stale claims, which suffer from evidentiary problems like lost evidence and faded memories. While the discovery rule has been applied in cases of medical malpractice or products liability, those cases involved objective, verifiable evidence of the wrongful act and resulting harm, such as a surgical sponge left in a patient or a diagnosis of asbestosis from asbestos exposure. In contrast, a claim based on a repressed memory recovered through therapy is inherently subjective and lacks independent verification. The court reasons that the testimony of family members about past behavior or of psychologists about the therapeutic process does not constitute objective proof that the alleged acts occurred. Because the risk of spurious claims and the difficulty in ascertaining the truth are so high in such cases, the unfairness of precluding the action is outweighed by the need to protect the justice system from stale, unverifiable claims.
Dissenting - Pearson, J.
Yes. The discovery rule should apply. The majority incorrectly focuses on the need for 'objective, verifiable evidence,' when the true linchpin of the discovery rule has always been 'fundamental fairness.' The core purpose of the rule is to prevent the injustice of barring a claim before the plaintiff could possibly know it exists. The nature of childhood sexual abuse often leads to psychological repression as a coping mechanism, making it impossible for a victim to bring a claim within the statutory period. Foreclosing a claim because it will be difficult to prove is illogical, as many legal disputes are 'swearing contests' that rely on the trier of fact's credibility determinations. The court should allow the plaintiff the opportunity to convince a jury that her discovery was reasonable, rather than barring her claim at the outset.
Concurring - Goodloe, J.
No. While the dissent's arguments based on fairness are compelling, extending the discovery rule to this context constitutes judicial policy-making. Such a significant change, which involves balancing complex social interests, is a matter best left to the Legislature, not the judiciary.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of the discovery rule in Washington, drawing a sharp line between torts evidenced by objective phenomena and those based on subjective, repressed memories. By refusing to extend the rule, the court prioritizes the policy of finality and the prevention of stale claims over providing a remedy for victims of childhood abuse whose trauma manifests as memory loss. The ruling effectively closed the courthouse doors to a specific class of plaintiffs, placing the burden on the state legislature to create a statutory exception if it wished to allow such claims. This case highlights the judicial struggle in balancing fairness to plaintiffs with the evidentiary challenges and potential for fraud posed by claims arising from events decades in the past.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Tyson v. Tyson (1986)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"