Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 93-1846
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | DAY; GESKE; HEFFERNAN; The majority would further insist that the discovery rule, were it technically applicable, should, as a matter of public policy, not be applied to permit a litigant to get to a jury on so stale a claim. There is much philosophi |
| Citation | 533 N.W.2d 780,194 Wis.2d 302 |
| Parties | , 64 USLW 2045 Judith M. PRITZLAFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, d v. ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner, Reverend John T. Donovan, Defendant-Respondent, Arizona Health Care Costs Containment System and Health Care Financing Administration, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | No. 93-1846,93-1846 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1995 |
Page 780
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner,
Reverend John T. Donovan, Defendant-Respondent,
Arizona Health Care Costs Containment System and Health Care
Financing Administration, Defendants.
Decided June 27, 1995.
Page 781
[194 Wis.2d 306] For the defendant-respondent-petitioner there were briefs by Matthew J. Flynn, Kevin P. Crooks, Katherine H. Grebe and Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee and oral argument by Matthew J. Flynn.
Page 782
For the plaintiff-appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Robert S. Sosnay, Milwaukee.
Amicus curiae brief was filed by M. Christine Cowles, Mary Beth Castino and Mohr & Anderson, S.C., Hartford, for Wis. Ins. Alliance.
DAY, Justice.
This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals reversing an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Honorable John G. Bartholomew, presiding, that dismissed all claims against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee (Archdiocese) and the Reverend [194 Wis.2d 307] Father John Donovan (Fr. Donovan) arising out of a relationship that was alleged to have occurred between Fr. Donovan and Ms. Judith M. Pritzlaff from 1959 to 1965 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Section 802.06, Stats. (1993-94). We conclude that to allow the claim to proceed against the Archdiocese based on Ms. Pritzlaff's allegation concerning Fr. Donovan despite the passage of twenty-seven years since the end of the alleged relationship would be contrary to the public policy of the State. We also conclude that the claims of negligent hiring, retaining, training and supervision are barred by the First Amendment in this case. We therefore reverse that portion of the decision of the court of appeals which remanded the case for a trial of the negligent hiring, training and supervision claim against the Archdiocese.
Ms. Pritzlaff first filed a complaint against Fr. Donovan and the Archdiocese on November 12, 1992. The relevant allegations from her complaint are as follows:
4. That at all times material, defendant Donovan was a Roman Catholic priest and an agent/representative of the defendant Archdiocese.
5. That defendant Donovan first met the plaintiff while she was a high school student in the late 1950's.
6. That thereafter, while acting in his capacity as a priest, defendant Donovan used said position to develop a friend like relationship with the plaintiff.
7. That defendant Donovan continued said relationship with the plaintiff.
[194 Wis.2d 308] 8. That defendant Donovan did in fact use said relationship and his position as a priest to coerce the plaintiff to have a sexual relationship with him.
9. That as a result of the actions of defendant Donovan, the plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress, causing and contributing to the break-up of her marriage, separation from her children, loss of jobs and other difficulties.
. . . . .
11. That at all times the defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known the type of conduct being pursued by Donovan and should have taken steps to stop same.
Five days later, on November 17, 1992, Fr. Donovan filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, asserting among other things that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. On December 28, 1992, the Archdiocese also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim which asserted that the alleged conduct of Fr. Donovan was not tortious, that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the Archdiocese was not responsible as a matter of law for the alleged conduct of Fr. Donovan.
In apparent response to the defendants' motions, on January 20, 1993, Ms. Pritzlaff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint was divided into two causes of action. The first cause of action was against Fr. Donovan for his alleged actions. The second cause of action was against the Archdiocese and incorporated by reference all of the allegations against Fr. Donovan. The amended complaint reasserted most of the allegations made above and added the following relevant allegations:
[194 Wis.2d 309] 9. That defendant DONOVAN did in fact use said relationship and his position as a priest to force and coerce the plaintiff to have a sexual relationship with him without her consent.
10. That Defendant DONOVAN caused Plaintiff JUDITH M. PRITZLAFF, to suffer and continues to suffer from severe
Page 783
emotional distress, causing and contributing to the break-up of her marriage, separation from her children and serious personal injuries, including but not limited to severe and painful psychological injuries, which injuries are permanent in nature and have caused her to incur pain, suffering, humiliation, disability, loss of earning capacity and a loss of an ability to enjoy life and expenses for medical and psychological treatment.11. As a result of the psychological distress caused by the sexual advances and the coping mechanisms which were subsequently developed by JUDITH M. PRITZLAFF, she has suppressed and been unable to perceive the existence, nature or cause of her psychological and emotional injuries until approximately April, 1992.
. . . . .
15. That upon information and belief, and at all times material hereto, the ARCHDIOCESE was responsible for the training and placement and supervision of archdiocesan priests and the assignment of those priests into archdiocesan's schools and church parishes within the Milwaukee Archdiocese.
16. The ARCHDIOCESE had a duty to admit only qualified candidates into the priesthood, properly test and screen candidates for the priesthood and priests to ascertain if such persons had an illness or sexual inclination which caused a priest to be sexually attracted to teenage girls/young women, ... [194 Wis.2d 310] prior to placing a priest in to the community, to make appropriate placements of priest considering all relevant factors, supervise the priests which the archdiocese placed into the community, to counsel and guide priests in dealing with issues of celibacy and human sexuality and to supervise the operation of the various parishes located within the Archdiocese, including but not limited to all parishes at which DONOVAN served.
. . . . .
20. The ARCHDIOCESE knew or should have known that DONOVAN had a sexual problem prior to 1959 and acted willfully, intentionally and in wanton and reckless disregard of the rights and safety of plaintiff by failing to remove DONOVAN from serving as a priest....
On February 8, 1993 and February 26, 1993, Fr. Donovan and the Archdiocese again filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In addition to the reasons stated in their first motions to dismiss, the Archdiocese asserted that the negligent supervision claim was inadequately pleaded and that First Amendment precluded a court from finding any liability on the part of the Archdiocese for negligent supervision. Ms. Pritzlaff did not respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss until March 31, 1993. The Archdiocese asserted that this failure to file a timely brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss was also a ground for dismissing the complaint.
On April 26, 1993, the circuit court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court held that the Archdiocese was not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior since the alleged actions of Fr. Donovan could not have been in the scope of his employment, that there is no basis to hold the Archdiocese[194 Wis.2d 311] liable on a theory of negligence, and that the statute of limitations bars the claims both because the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in discovering her claim and because "to allow this action to proceed after a passage of 27 years would be fundamentally wrong and in clear violation of sound public policy." Ms. Pritzlaff appealed the circuit court order.
On August 23, 1994, the court of appeals held that the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. It also held that the circuit court erred when it declined to recognize the claim of negligent supervision. However, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's conclusion that the Archdiocese was not liable on a theory of respondeat superior. The Archdiocese, but not Fr. Donovan, petitioned this court for review of the court of appeals' decision. We granted that petition for review. 1
Page 784
Ms. Pritzlaff did not file a cross-petition seeking review of the court of appeals decision that the Archdiocese could not be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior. That issue is therefore not before this court.
This case requires this court to review the pleadings to determine if they state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When undertaking such a review, this court liberally construes the pleadings, and accepts the allegations in the pleadings as true. Bowen v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 183 Wis.2d 627, 635-36, 517 N.W.2d 432 (1994). Further, this court will dismiss [194 Wis.2d 312] claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted only if "it is quite clear that under no conditions can the plaintiff recover." Id. at 636, 517 N.W.2d 432.
A threshold question when reviewing a complaint is whether the complaint has been timely filed, because an otherwise sufficient claim will be dismissed if that claim is time barred. Section 802.06, Stats. (1993-94). Since we conclude that Ms. Pritzlaff's twenty-seven year old claim is time barred, we reverse that portion of the decision of the court of appeals which remanded the claim against the Archdiocese for negligent supervision.
The relevant statute of limitations for actions against the Archdiocese is three years. See sec. 330.205, Stats. (1963), and its successor, sec. 893.54, Stats. (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Doe 67C v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, No. 2003AP1416
...Wis. 2d 312, 565 N.W.2d 94 (1997), L.L.N. v. Clauder, 209 Wis. 2d 674, 563 N.W.2d 434 (1997), and Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995). This appeal stems from that ¶ 5. We note at the outset that all three causes of action require that at the time of......
-
Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 123 (Wis. 7/13/2005), No. 2003AP1416.
...Wis. 2d 312, 565 N.W.2d 94 (1997), L.L.N. v. Clauder, 209 Wis. 2d 674, 563 N.W.2d 434 (1997), and Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995). This appeal stems from that ¶ 5 We note at the outset that all three causes of action require that at the time of ......
-
Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., No. 2004AP2655.
...actual damages under the "benefit of the bargain" rule and under the standard enunciated in Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis.2d 302, 315, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995). Tietsworth I, 261 Wis.2d 755, ¶¶ 11-16, 661 N.W.2d ¶ 13 Harley sought review of the decision to reinstate the two fr......
-
Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, No. 1 and A
...the Hammer decision by enacting Wis. Stat. § 893.587 as the statute of limitations for claims of incest. 12 See Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese, 194 Wis.2d 302, 319, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 920, 133 L.Ed.2d 849 ¶42 We applied the discovery rule codified in Wis......
-
McCreary v. Weast, 96-244
...opinion, 318 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C.Cir.1996). 4 The holding in Hammer was limited by Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis.2d 302, 533 N.W.2d 780...
-
NH v. Presbyterian Church (USA), 92953.
...of priest.]; Swanson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 1997 ME 63, 692 A.2d 441, 445; Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis.2d 302, 533 N.W.2d 780, 789 (1995), reh'g denied, 540 N.W.2d 203, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1116, 116 S.Ct. 920, 133 L.Ed.2d 849 (1996) [First Amendment barr......
-
Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 1 and A
...the Hammer decision by enacting Wis. Stat. § 893.587 as the statute of limitations for claims of incest. 12 See Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese, 194 Wis.2d 302, 319, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 920, 133 L.Ed.2d 849 ¶42 We applied the discovery rule codified in Wis......
-
Sawyer v. Midelfort, 97-1969
...have been wronged or because they do not know the identity of the person who has wronged them. Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis.2d 302, 315-16, 533 N.W.2d 780 ¶67 The parties do not dispute that the Sawyers' negligent infliction of emotional distress injuries occurred in 1985 ......
-
RETRIBUTION AGAINST CATHOLIC DIOCESES BY REVIVAL: THE EVOLUTION AND LEGACY OF THE NEW YORK CHILD VICTIMS ACT.
...Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, 41 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 412, 415 (2013). (91) See, e.g., Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780, 782, 785 (Wis. 1995). Studies showed that adults who experienced childhood sexual abuse exhibited delayed-onset psychological symptoms li......