|
| Summary | Text of Statute | Commentary | Resources |
Summary: Oregon victims may bring suit
- within 6 years of age 18, or
- within 3 years of discovery of the causal connection between the injury and the abuse.
Text:
Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.117 (1995 Rev) Child Abuse
(1) Notwithstanding ORS 12.110, 12.115 or 12.160, an action based on conduct that constitutes child abuse or conduct knowingly allowing, permitting or encouraging child abuse accruing while the person who is entitled to bring the action is under 18 years of age shall be commenced not more than six years after that person attains 18 years of age, or if the injured person has not discovered the injury or the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse, nor in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the injury or the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse, not more than three years from the date the injured person discovers or in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the injury or the causal connection between the child abuse and the injury, whichever period is longer.
(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section, "child abuse" means any of the following:
(a) Intentional conduct by an adult that results in:
(A) Any physical injury to a child; or
(B) Any mental injury to a child which results in observable and substantial impairment of the child's mental or psychological ability to function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture of the child;
(b) Rape of a child, which includes but is not limited to rape, sodomy, unlawful sexual penetration and incest, as those acts are defined in ORS chapter 163;
(c) Sexual abuse, as defined in ORS chapter 163, when the victim is a child; or
(d) Sexual exploitation of a child, including but not limited to:
(A) Conduct constituting violation of ORS 163.435 and any other conduct which allows, employs, authorizes, permits, induces or encourages a child to engage in the performing for people to observe or the photographing, filming, tape recording or other exhibition which, in whole or in part, depicts sexual conduct or contact; and
(B) Allowing, permitting, encouraging or hiring a child to engage in prostitution, as defined in ORS chapter 167.
(3) Nothing in this section creates a new cause of action or enlarges any existing cause of action.
Laws 1989, c. 643, §§ 2,3; Laws 1991, c. 386, § 4; Laws 1991, c. 932, § 1; Laws 1993, c. 18, § 5; Laws 1993, c. 296, § 1; Laws 1993, c. 622, § 2.
:
Retroactivity and Revival: "The amendments to ORS 12.117 by section 1 of this Act apply to all causes of action whether arising before, on or after the effective date of this Act [July 8, 1993], and shall act to revive any cause of action barred by the operation of ORS 12.117 (1991 Edition). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any cause of action that was dismissed or adjudicated before the effective date of this Act based upon that provision of ORS 12.117 (1991 Edition) requiring that an action be commenced on or before the plaintiff attains 40 years of age may be brought within one year after the effective date of this Act as though the original proceeding had never been commenced."
In Jasmin v. Ross, 33 P.3d 725 (Or. Ct. App. 2001), the Oregon Court of Appeals held that an individual who, as an adult, first discovered the connection between her psychological problems and past sexual abuse, timely filed her claim under the state's delayed discovery exception to the statute of limitations. The exception provides, in part, that an individual injured by sexual abuse may bring suit up to three years from the date of discovery of the causal connection between the injury and the abuse.
In Lourim v. Swensen, the Court ruled that the statute applies to third parties who knowingly allowed, permitted or encouraged child abuse and therefore there was no recourse against the Boy Scouts of America because they had no notice that a volunteer was committing acts of sexual abuse on Scouts. 936 P.2d 1011, 147 Or. App. 425, review allowed 950 P.2d 893, 326 Or. 133, affirmed in part, reversed in part 977 P.2d 1157, 328 Or. 380 (1999). Similarly, in Fearing v. Bucher, the court ruled that the extended statute of limitations was not available to bring action against an archdiocese for "mere negligent hiring, retention and supervision." 936 P.2d 1023, 147 Or. App. 446, review allowed 950 P.2d 893, 326 Or. 133, affirmed in part, reversed in part 977 P.2d 1163, 328 Or. 367 (1997).
Resources:
- Oregon Statutes
- Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
- Links and resources from Women's Law
Revised 09/03/2007. Copyright Susan K. Smith. All rights reserved.
|
