 A sexual assault case against James Brown turned out well for the "Godfather of Soul," but leaves some nagging questions about how statutes of limitations apply to claims involving traumatic injury.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that Jacque Hollander waited too long to allege Brown had raped her in 1988. She filed suit in 2005 for $106 million in damages after doctors told her that the alleged assault had caused her to develop a thyroid condition.
"The thrust of Ms. Hollander's argument is that the psychological trauma of the rape made discovery of her full injury a slow and lengthy process," Judge Kenneth F. Ripple wrote for the court.
But the discovery rule does not toll the two-year statute of limitations, the opinion concluded, because "Ms. Hollander knew she had suffered at least some injuries at the time of the incident in 1988," and
In the words of the Supreme Court of Illinois, she is "not a plaintiff who failed to discover any injury, but a plaintiff who failed to discover the full extent of her injuries before the statute of limitations expired."
Illinois does apply the discovery rule to plaintiffs whose injuries have a late or "insidious" onset, such as those unknowingly exposed to asbestos who discover many years later that they have cancer. A victim of a "sudden, traumatic event" is presumed to have been placed "on notice of her injury and a right of action."
But the very nature of trauma is that its effects are insidious and may take many years to manifest themselves. As Jacque Hollander has discovered, statutes of limitations law is a long way from recognizing that.
|
Other James Brown Case Sources
|
By Matthew Heller
8/15/06
The Bush administration has only itself to blame for a judicial panel's decision to consolidate 17 NSA surveillance-related cases in the court of a judge who appears unsympathetic to the state secrets defense.
The cases were filed in 13 federal district courts around the country and all involve plaintiffs who claim that phone companies, acting at the behest of the NSA, illegally intercepted their phone calls or disclosed records of phone calls.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco is the only judge so far to rule that the state secrets privilege does not apply to such claims.
The government wanted the cases centralized in one location for security reasons and supported the selection of the District of Columbia as that location. But in a move that had to be galling for the feds, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation chose the court of, yes, Judge Walker.
While Walker has "already established and utilized a procedure for reviewing classified information that the Government deems necessary to decide its state secrets claim," the panel noted in its order, the D.C. court doesn't have any of the cases at issue pending on its docket.
"Centralization in the District of Columbia forum would thus require the very duplication and expansion of access to classified information that the Government deems so perilous," the panel concluded.
Now the feds, hoist on their own petard, must face the perils of Judge Walker's courtroom.
By Matthew Heller
8/15/06
|
