§ 541.073

Minnesota Statutes

Source: 2025 Minnesota Statutes. For the official text, see revisor.mn.gov.

Citing Cases (39)

Minnesota Supreme Court

Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis · 2012 9 citations

+ 9 more citations in this opinion.

Lickteig v. Kolar · 2010 9 citations

+ 9 more citations in this opinion.

D.M.S. v. Barber · 2002 13 citations

+ 13 more citations in this opinion.

W.J.L. v. Bugge · 1998 19 citations

+ 19 more citations in this opinion.

Blackowiak v. Kemp · 1996 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. · 2016 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis · 2011 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Mauer · 2007 1 citation

Mauer argues that the statute’s culpability requirement is constitutionally insufficient for a statute regulating child pornography'. According to Mauer, the “reason to know” language creates a civil-negligence standard. Mauer’s characterization of “reason to know” as a civil-negligence standard has support in the language of some Minnesota cases. See State v. Grover, 437 N.W.2d 60, 62-63 (Minn.1989) (equating “reason to know” with criminal-negligence standard); see also D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383, 387 (Minn.2002) (interpreting “reason to know” in Minn. Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2(a), to require objective, reasonable-person standard). As we interpret the statute, however, the requirement of “knowing or with reason to *814 know” imposes a scienter requirement that is more demanding than a civil- or a criminal-negligence standard.

Doe v. F.P., Diocese of Winona · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

D.M.S. v. Barber · 2001 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

Brett v. Watts · 1999 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Bertram v. Poole · 1999 9 citations

+ 9 more citations in this opinion.

J.J. v. Luckow · 1998 2 citations

OPINION CRIPPEN, Judge. Based on injuries caused by sexual abuse, appellant J.J. commenced this action when he was 24 years old; six years and four days after the abuse ended. In a summary judgment that we affirm, the trial court determined that the statute of limitation expired before appellant brought this action and rejected appellant’s contention that he had reason for failing to know he had been sexually abused until he was confronted about the abuse one week after it ended. FACTS The evidence indicates that respondent Luckow sexually abused appellant during several years ending on August 24, 1989, 40 days after appellant turned age 18. Until appellant was questioned six days later about his relationship with Luckow, no one else was aware of the abuse. The two became acquainted through appellant’s father, who had *19been Luekow’s partner in the Minneapolis Police Department. Appellant commenced this action on August 28, 1995. Noting that appellant did not claim to have repressed his memories of the abuse, the trial court found that at all pertinent times appellant “recalled and understood the details of the abuse.” The court concluded that “[a] reasonable person in [appellant’s] situation should have known that he had been abused” prior to August 24, 1989. ISSUES 1. Did the trial court err in finding that-the statute of limitations ran on August- 24, 1995? 2. Did appellant’s infancy disability prior to July 15, 1989 extend the period of limitation beyond August 24,1995? ANALYSIS 1. Generally, the date on which victims of sexual abuse know or have reason to know that they have been abused involves a factual determination and is a question for the trier of fact. W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Minn.1998) (citing Wittmer v. Ruegemer, 419 N.W.2d 493, 498 (Minn. 1988)). But where the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and as a matter of law either party is entitled to judgment, summary judgment is appropriate. Id. (quoting Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03). While the moving party must show that no issues of material fact exist, the nonmoving party may avoid summary judgment by presenting specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. (noting that the nonmoving party cannot rely on allegations in the pleadings or speculate on evidence that might be produced at trial). Appellant asserts that he did not know or have reason to know that he was sexually abused before the police questioned him on August 30, 1989. In determining when appellant knew or should have known he was abused, we are to apply a reasonable person standard. Id. at 681. This standard has been adopted by the supreme court in recognition that “[w]hile the manifestation and form of the injury is significant to the victim, it is simply not relevant to the ultimate question of the time at which the complainant knew or should have known that he/she was sexually abused.” Blackowiak v. Kemp, 546 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Minn.1996). Because of the inseparable interplay between the act of sexual abuse and personal injury, “the victim is immediately put on notice of the causal connection between the abuse, and injury.” W.J.L., 573 N.W.2d at 681. “Accordingly, the statute of limitations begins to run once a victim is abused unless there is some legal disability, such as the victim’s age, or mental disability, such as repressed memory of the abuse, which would make a reasonable person incapable of recognizing or understanding that he or she had been sexually abused.” Id. ' Rejecting the application of a “wholly subjective inquire into [W.J.L.’s] unique circumstance,” the supreme court in W.J.L. found that W.J.L.’s recollection of being confused by the abuse and her abuser’s representation that the misconduct was therapeutic was not helpful in determining when a reasonable person in the same situation should have known of the abuse. Id. at 682 (quoting Blackomak, 546 N.W.2d at 3). The court concluded that “[m]erely not thinking about the abuse is not enough to delay the running of the statute of limitations.” Id. Similarly, in Blackomak, noting that the victim had not discussed his abuse with a counselor because of “shame,” the supreme court concluded that recognition of shame is evidence that a psychological injury occurred and that the victim should have known he was injured. 546 N.W.2d at 3. In this case, appellant did not tell anyone of the abuse prior to being questioned by the police. A psychologist offering an affidavit on appellant’s behalf, explained that “sexual abuse victims often suffer from confusion, guilt and self-blame which preclude them from realizing that they have *20been victimized by the trusting adult authority figure.” As in Blackowiak and W.J.L., we are left with no evidence of when appellant knew he was injured other than his silence and its roots in the confusion, guilt, and shame that he suffered. But silence does not represent a special cause to delay the running of the statute of limitations. W.J.L., 573 N.W.2d at 682. And delay is not justified by evidence of confusion, guilt, or self-blame. Id.; Blackowiak, 546 N.W.2d at 3. Moreover, as respondent City of Minneapolis contends, appellant’s silence was not easily broken when he was confronted on August 30, 1989, which he attributes to his concern that Luckow would be sent to prison. This concern having arisen immediately upon the confrontation of appellant, it is evident that appellant was well aware that Luckow’s conduct was improper. Appellant attempts to distinguish pri- or authority by suggesting that victims do not know they have been injured due to sexual abuse prior to appreciating that the perpetrator is a wrongdoer. Appellant’s psychologist explains that it often takes a great deal of time for “victims of sexual abuse to understand or even suspect that they were victimized,” again, because they suffer from confusion, guilt, and self-blame. The expert proffers that wrongdoing is not understood when attributed to a person in a position of trust and authority. This distinction is unsupported and specifically refuted by the reasoning in Blackowiak. The victim’s absolution of the perpetrator does not eliminate knowledge of sexual abuse. Rather, as explained in the record here, it reflects guilt and self-doubt, which for a reasonable person is a recognition of injury. See id. (victim of sexual abuse should have known he had been injured at point he recognized that he did not discuss abuse with counselor because of shame). 2. In the present case, the majority of appellant’s abuse occurred during a period of legal disability — his state of infancy prior to his 18th birthday on July 15,1989. Although he was abused as an adult for 40 days, he was abused as a child for several years. Appellant suggests that he has seven years after he becomes an adult to bring a suit on the childhood abuse. The seven years includes six years under Minn. Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2(a) (1996) (governing actions for damages due to sexual abuse), and one year under Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a)(1) (1996) (the infancy rule). This proposition represents a misconstruction of section 541.15(a). Under Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a) (1996), the circumstance of childhood “suspend[s] the running of the period of limitation” until the child becomes age 18. Added to this statute is the declaration that “such period” shall not be extended, in the case of infancy, “for more than one year after the disability ceases.”1 In the circumstances of this ease, appellant’s infancy disability provides him no advantage for an action commenced after July 15, 1990, his 19th birthday. His limitation period is shorter under the one-year infancy rule than under the six-year statute of limitations, which began running no sooner than August 24,1989. Our understanding of the language of the statute is prompted by case law that has applied the one-year rule for disabilities, determining that the “period of limitations” ends after expiration of the maximum period (one year for the infancy disability) for which it is “extended” under the statute; the limitations period is not added to the extension period. See, e.g. Langer v. Newmann, 100 Minn. 27, 29,110 N.W. 68, 69 (1907) (party to action is not entitled to bring action any time within period of limitation after disability ceases “but, on the contrary, [the statute] expressly provides that the period of limitation in no case shall be extended by any disability for more than one year after disability ceases * * * [t]here can be no extension of the period of limitation beyond one year after the disability has been removed”) *21(emphasis added); Voegele v. Mahoney, 237 Minn. 43, 49, 54 N.W.2d 15, 19 (1952) (if when adverse possession action accrues the claimant is an infant, “the running of the period of limitation is suspended for not more than one year after the disability ceases”) (emphasis added); Anderson v. Lutheran Deaconess Hosp., 257 N.W.2d 561, 562 (Minn.1977) (where statutory period for bringing a medical malpractice suit expired while plaintiff was a minor and statute of limitations would have run before he reached the age of majority, statute operated to provide a one-year period after reaching the age of majority within which to commence suit); see generally 30 Dunnell Minn. Digest Limitation of Actions § 2.05(a) (4th ed.1996) (cerr tain disabilities suspend the running of the period of limitation, but “[t]he period is extended in no case for more than one year after the disability ceases”); see also Lelm by Lelm v. Mayo Found., 135 F.3d 584, 587-89 (8th Cir.1998) (contrasting section 541.15(a), which the 8th Circuit court says limits maximum extension of the “limitations period,” with the later-enacted section 541.15(b) (1996), which limits the extension of the “suspension” of the limitation period (for certain health care suits); the former working to bar a cause of action when the extension period ends and the latter providing for the full running of the period of limitations after the extension period ends). Urging a different construction of section 541.15(a)(1), appellant points to language in W.J.L. In that case, W.J.L. initiated an action in 1995, 14½ years after the abuse ended in 1980, which was more than one year after W.J.L. became an adult in 1979. See W.J.L. v. Bugge, C6-96-1619,1997 WL 30721, unpub. op., at *1, ⅜7 (Minn.App. Jan. 28, 1997) (Randall, J. concurring in part, dissenting in part) (reporting facts of the case). The supreme court denied W.J.L. any extension of the statute of limitations premised on the absence of knowledge she had suffered injury due to sexual abuse. W.J.L., 573 N.W.2d at 682. As a result, according to the court’s holding, the statute had expired long before the suit was instituted in 1995. Commenting in these circumstances about the running of the statute of limitations, exclusive of section 541.073, the court observed that the limitations period under the sexual abuse statute “would have begun to run one year after W.J.L. reached the age of majority and expired when she turned 25.” Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a)(1)). Troublesome as this observation may be, we are unpersuaded that it represents a reinterpretation of section 541.15(a)(1) and an overruling of over 90 years of decisions on the impact of the one-year extension in the event of infancy. The determination of the precise statute of limitations date was not necessary to the decision of W.J.L. and nothing suggests that either party raised the infancy exception. Appellant contends that the infancy language in W.J.L. should be viewed as a construction of section 541.073. But this assertion ignores the fact that the supreme court attributed its observation to section 541.15(a)(1). In any case, no construction of section 541.073 is helpful in the immediate situation without adding to its six-year limitation period the one year provided for in section 541.15(a)(1). From the date of appellant’s majority on July 15, 1989, the six-year period expired on July 15,1995, over a month before this suit was commenced. The quoted language from W.J.L. cannot be given the significance of adding one year to the delayed discovery statute unless it is viewed as a redetermihation of the1 law under Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a)(1). DECISION Because there are no disputed issues of material fact regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, and because the trial court correctly applied the law, we affirm the summary judgment and decline to reach respondent’s contentions on other claims for the same relief. Affirmed.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Wall v. Fair View Hospital & Healthcare Services · 1997 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Scheffler v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis · 1997 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Doe v. Redeemer Lutheran Church · 1996 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Sarafolean v. Kauffman · 1996 2 citations

1989 Minn.Laws ch. 190, § 2 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 541.073 (Supp.1989)). This section took effect on the day following its enactment, and it explicitly applied to “actions pending on or commenced on or after” the effective date. 1989 Minn. Laws ch. 190, § 6. The following “window” provision accompanied the new statute:

Winkler v. Magnuson · 1995 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

K.B. v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America · 1995 4 citations

FACTS K.B. is a forty-two year old married mother of three. Donald Olson (Olson) was appellant's former Sunday school teacher and pastor at First Lutheran Church (First Lutheran) from 1966 to 1972. Olson began working for First Lutheran in February 1966 as a seminarian. Olson's duties included youth work, liturgy, some preaching, hospital calling, teaching Sunday school, and working at a summer camp. Olson became an associate pastor at First Lutheran after graduation in 1966, and he remained there until 1972. K.B. and Olson met in 1966, when K.B. was in eighth grade and Olson taught her confirmation class. Olson was also in charge of a youth group in which K.B. was very active. K.B. also sought counseling with Olson for family problems. Olson asked K.B. to participate in a sexuality "survey" involving young members of the congregation. Olson had K.B.'s parents sign a permission slip allowing her to participate in group and individual discussions regarding sexual issues and to see an "R"-rated movie. Ten to fifteen youths participated. K.B. attended individual sessions on a weekly basis when she was 14. During these sessions, Olson initiated sexual touching. Olson asked K.B. many questions about sex, including how the touching made her feel. The sexual contact continued on a weekly basis and eventually escalated to digital penetration. Each time, Olson asked K.B. how the touching made her feel. Olson also placed K.B.'s hands inside his pants to touch his penis. On several occasions, Olson removed K.B.'s clothing, took instant pictures and showed them to her, and then disposed of them. The sexual contact occurred in Olson's church office, the church basement, Olson's home, and at summer camp. Olson told K.B. that their relationship was special and they had to keep it secret. K.B. states that she did not tell anyone about the touching because she really cared for Olson, felt loved by him, and even thought of marrying him. The sexual contact decreased in frequency during K.B.'s junior and senior years of high school. During this time, she saw Olson with another girl, S.G. K.B. saw Olson and S.G. go into his office a number of times, and saw him picking S.G. up at school. K.B. was hurt when things started to slow down between them and knew it was because Olson was with someone else. The last sexual contact occurred in May 1972, when K.B. was 18. K.B. was at Olson's home when he received a call offering him a job in Colorado. Olson's wife and son were also present. K.B. began to cry when Olson was offered the job. He took her into his bedroom and they had intercourse. This was the only time that intercourse occurred. In the fall of 1972, when K.B. was 19, she told S.G. that Olson had been "with" other girls. S.G. became angry and called Olson in Colorado. Olson yelled at K.B. on the telephone, accusing her of spreading lies about him and stating that when he returned to Minnesota on an upcoming scheduled visit, he would "kick [her] butt from one end of the island to the other" if she was not the first person he saw when he arrived. K.B. was frightened and confused by Olson's statements. She went to the camp manager, Gary Cummings, and told him about the sexual contact and pictures, but did not tell him about having intercourse the previous spring. Cummings was "shocked" and K.B. was "fairly upset." Olson met with both K.B. and S.G. a few days later. Olson and S.G. told K.B. that their relationship was "special." K.B. felt sad, she experienced a sense of loss, and she did not see Olson after the incident. K.B. married in 1977. She did not think about the abuse or talk to anyone about it, except for making short references about it to her husband, until 1987. In 1986, K.B. began experiencing mood swings and depression. On July 25, 1986, her family physician noted suicidal ideation. In August 1987, she was referred to an eating *155 disorders program. On October 9, 1987, in a therapy session, she told Dione Larson, R.N., about the sexual contact she experienced with Olson. The therapist's notes recount: [K.B.] talked about the Lutheran minister, who, when she was 12 yrs. old, asked her parents and others to take the children to an R rated movie. From that, he isolated [her] into 1:1 counseling where he touched her breasts and took provocative nude pictures of her. Then he forced oral sex. [K.B.] believes that this happened to 3 or 4 other girls as well but that no one talked. The minister was highly respected. A few years later suspicions were aroused and he left town when the heat was on. [K.B.] never told anyone, other than bits and pieces to her husband. She's been thinking about it more lately [?] to her own children getting older. [Assessment:] Will need additional 1:1s and support to discuss the sexual abuse she experienced. The record is unclear whether K.B. discussed the abuse with anyone else after this disclosure. There are no other therapist notes on this topic in the record. K.B. was receiving treatment from a psychiatrist and participating in group therapy in addition to the sessions with the therapist. There are no notes in the record from the psychiatrist or from group therapy. K.B.'s condition deteriorated until she was hospitalized on August 23, 1988, for major depression and anorexia. Her intake interview on August 24, 1988, notes: She reports a sexual abuse incident or incidents that occurred when she was about 13 with her Lutheran pastor. The person responsible for the abuse was a seminarian at the time this happened and was able to cover his abusive acts with teenagers by having parents sign permission slips for a research study into teenagers' attitudes toward sexuality. She feels that she has worked through the issue of the sexual abuse by talking about it with her psychiatrist and therapist within the last year. [K.B.] sees her eating disorder as an issue of control and feels that her life has been out of control and controlled by others for her lifetime. K.B. states in her affidavit that she first began to understand that her problems were caused by the abuse after inpatient counseling began in August 1988. K.B. initiated a lawsuit in December 1993, seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by respondents Olson, First Lutheran, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and St. Paul Area Synod. The complaint alleged sexual battery, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability and negligence that allegedly occurred between 1966 and 1972. In 1994, after the lawsuit was served, K.B. was evaluated by Dr. Carol E. Novak, a licensed psychiatrist. Dr. Novak testified that she has extensive experience in treating victims of sexual abuse, including individuals who have been victimized by adult authority figures. Dr. Novak testified about the symptoms and injuries experienced by such victims. She also discussed how these symptoms and injuries are more pronounced where the victim is a child or young adult at the time of the abuse and where the perpetrator is in a position of trust and authority. Dr. Novak noted that as a result of the immense disparity of knowledge and power, and because of the trust that the victim has in the perpetrator, victims of sexual abuse, such as K.B., often suffer from confusion, guilt and self-blame, which preclude them from realizing that they have been victimized by the trusting adult authority figure. Dr. Novak concluded that K.B.'s inability to understand that she was sexually abused or that she had suffered injuries as a result of the sexual abuse was "quite typical of victims under these circumstances." Dr. Novak testified that K.B. did not start to realize until after August 1988 that she had been sexually abused by Olson or that she suffered injuries as a result of that abuse. In Dr. Novak's opinion, the October 9, 1987, therapist's note was not an indication that K.B. knew she was abused or that she was injured as a result of the abuse. Respondents moved for summary judgment on all counts, contending the claims were barred by the statute of limitations set *156 out in Minn. Stat. § 541.073. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that "under an objective standard, [K.B.] had reason to know by October 1987 [more than six years before K.B. commenced the lawsuit] that her injuries had been caused by Olson's sexual abuse of her." On appeal, K.B. argues she did not know and should not have known prior to August 1988 that her injuries were caused by the sexual abuse.

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Doe v. Redeemer Lutheran Church · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

S.E. v. Shattuck-St. Mary's School · 1995 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

VH v. Estate of Birnbaum · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

M.L. v. Magnuson · 1995 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

Blackowiak v. Kemp · 1995 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Green v. Sawdey · 1995 3 citations