Teater v. State
| Decision Date | 14 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. S-95-194,S-95-194 |
| Citation | 559 N.W.2d 758,252 Neb. 20 |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
| Parties | Teresa E.A. TEATER, Appellant, v. STATE of Nebraska, Appellee. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a question of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the lower court's ruling.
2. Limitations of Actions: Pleadings. If a petition alleges a cause of action ostensibly barred by the statute of limitations, such petition, in order to state a cause of action, must show some excuse tolling the operation and bar of the statute.
3. Limitations of Actions: Appeal and Error. The point at which a statute of limitations begins to run must be determined from the facts of each case, and the decision of the district court on the issue of the statute of limitations normally will not be set aside by an appellate court unless clearly wrong.
4. Limitations of Actions: Words and Phrases. In the context of statutes of limitations, discovery occurs when the party knows of facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to the discovery of facts constituting the basis of the cause of action.
5. Limitations of Actions: Torts. A statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the cause of action accrues, and an action in tort accrues as soon as the act or omission occurs.
6. Limitations of Actions. The focal point for determining when a cause of action accrues, even under the application of the discovery rule, is when the actual injury occurs. The focus is not on when the injured party recognizes whose negligence is responsible for the injury, but, rather, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date on which the party holding the cause of action discovers or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the existence of the injury.
7. Judgments: Appeal and Error. The factual findings of a trial court have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong.
Michael N. Dolich, of Friedman Law Offices, for appellant.
Don Stenberg, Attorney General, Royce N. Harper, and DeAnn C. Stover, Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Teresa E.A. Teater commenced a tort claim against the State of Nebraska for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the Nebraska Department of Social Services (DSS) while Teater was a ward of the state. The district court held that the claim was time barred, and Teater appeals.
When reviewing a question of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the lower court's ruling. Heins v. Webster County, 250 Neb. 750, 552 N.W.2d 51 (1996).
Teater was born on April 17, 1956. After her natural parents were incarcerated, DSS placed Teater in a foster home in Lincoln, Nebraska, on November 1, 1959. Thereafter, the foster parents attempted to adopt Teater. The adoption was apparently initially approved by the Lancaster County Court, but was appealed to the district court by the natural mother. Although the record is not clear, the foster parents apparently withdrew the adoption petition in order to avoid a contested case. In July 1963, the foster parents and Teater moved to Missouri. The foster parents were urged by DSS to pursue an adoption in Missouri, but they apparently never did. However, Teater remained with the foster parents under foster care.
From at least September 21, 1961, until February 1967, DSS did not maintain contact with the foster parents or Teater and did not monitor Teater's well-being. Although DSS sent a number of letters to the foster parents, the foster parents did not respond, and DSS did not pursue the matter further. Nevertheless, in February 1964, DSS informed Teater's natural mother that Teater was "well adjusted and well provided for."
This action was commenced by Teater pursuant to the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the employees and agents of DSS. Teater, who was 36 years old at the time she filed her claim, contended that she was subjected to continual sexual assaults by her foster father from the age of 6 until the age of 14. Teater alleged that DSS failed to supervise her foster home placement and that this failure permitted the continuation of the assaults by her foster father, causing Teater permanent psychological injury.
Teater's petition alleged that the State had been negligent in at least one of the following ways: (1) by failing to properly inspect and supervise Teater's placement with her foster parents, (2) by permitting Teater to remain in the foster parents' home despite the fact that they had not legally adopted her, (3) by failing to properly monitor the foster parents during the time Teater was placed with them, and/or (4) by failing to properly monitor Teater during the time she was placed with the foster parents.
The State denied the allegations and pled the affirmative defense that the statute of limitations applicable to tort claims against the State, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 81-8,227 (Reissue 1996), barred Teater's recovery.
At trial, Teater claimed that she did not become aware her adoption had failed--and that she was a ward of the State during the time she was allegedly sexually assaulted--until November 1992, when she requested her adoption files from the clerk of the Lancaster County District Court. Teater testified she was never informed by DSS or her foster parents that the adoption attempt had failed. Teater conceded, however, that when she was about 14 years old, she overheard a conversation in which the speaker stated that the foster parents' adoption attempt had failed.
The parties presented expert testimony regarding the psychological and social effects Teater alleged were caused by her childhood sexual abuse. Dr. Peter Frazier-Koontz, Teater's counselor for the previous 3 years, testified that he believed she suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder and mixed personality disorder. Frazier-Koontz stated that Teater's pattern of dysfunctional social behavior included her inability to maintain employment, locate housing, or provide for herself, as well as numerous other symptoms.
Dr. Henry Balters, a clinical psychologist who had treated Teater, opined that Teater suffered from adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features and mixed personalities. He said that Teater's history of anxiety and difficulty with forming relationships was consistent with being sexually abused as a young child.
On the other hand, the State's expert, Dr. Eli Chesen, a psychiatrist, testified that he was not persuaded that Teater had been sexually abused as a child, and he opined that she was not suffering from mixed personality or other mental disorder. He opined that Teater was "malingering," that is, faking her symptoms.
Following a trial to the Lancaster County District Court, the court held:
There is little doubt that [DSS] failed to supervise the placement of the plaintiff as required by its own rules. The state's feeble argument that it was acting under the assumption that the plaintiff had been adopted is contrary to its own records. Officials of [DSS] actively participated in a course of conduct to prevent the plaintiff's natural mother from obtaining any information about her children when such officials knew the adoption had been set aside on appeal. Despite possessing knowledge that the adoption had not been finalized and the deplorable actions towards the natural mother, they continued to fail to monitor the plaintiff's placement. Clearly, [DSS] was negligent with respect to the duty owed the plaintiff.
The district court found that the alleged sexual abuse started at age 6. Teater's petition was filed on December 15, 1992, which was 22 years following the first report of abuse and many years after Teater had reached the age of majority. Thus, the court held that Teater's claim was barred by the 2-year statute of limitations found in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-218 (Reissue 1995).
Teater had alleged in her petition that she was unaware of the sexual abuse because the traumatic nature of the conduct led her to repress the memory of such conduct until September 1991. However, in dismissing Teater's claim, the district court held that Teater had failed to meet the burden of proof that she suffered from a mental disorder which would prevent her from understanding her right to maintain a legal action. Rather, the court found that Teater was aware of the alleged abuse when she reported it to school officials at the age of 14. The court found that Teater's denial of knowledge of the abuse thereafter was inconsistent with her own actions, noting an essay written by her in 1985, as well as precautions Teater took with her own daughter when visiting her foster father several years earlier.
Finding that the statute of limitations barred the action, the district court dismissed Teater's petition and subsequently overruled her motion for new trial. Teater timely appealed.
Teater assigns the following errors to the district court: (1) The court erred as a matter of law in failing to apply the "discovery rule" to the applicable statute of limitations in tolling Teater's claim against the State, and (2) the court erred as a matter of law in refusing to apply the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment to toll the applicable statute of limitations for Teater's claim against the State.
If a petition alleges a cause of action ostensibly barred by the statute of limitations, such petition, in order to state a cause of action, must show some excuse tolling the operation and bar of the statute. Meyer Bros. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 250 Neb. 389, 551 N.W.2d 1 (1996); Zion Wheel Baptist Church v. Herzog, 249 Neb. 352, 543 N.W.2d 445 (1996). The point at which a statute of limitations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrington v. Costello
...extend discovery rule to delay accrual until identity of tortfeasor is known or reasonably knowable). But see also Teater v. State, 252 Neb. 20, 26, 559 N.W.2d 758 (1997). 10. We thus agree with Harrington that the discovery rule applies generally to defamation cases. Our holding in Flynn v......
-
Alston v. Hormel Foods Corp.
...of Regents, 263 Neb. 465, 640 N.W.2d 643 (2002). 5. Compare Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 25-222 and 25-223 (Reissue 1995). 6. See Teater v. State, 252 Neb. 20, 559 N.W.2d 758 (1997). 7. See, Copier Word Processing v. WesBanco Bank, 640 S.E.2d 102 (W.Va.2006); Beard v. Edmondson and Gallagher, 790 A.2d ......
-
Susman v. Kearney Towing & Repair Ctr., Inc.
...See, also, In re Estate of Adelung , 306 Neb. 646, 947 N.W.2d 269 (2020) ; Shlien v. Board of Regents, supra note 5 ; Teater v. State , 252 Neb. 20, 559 N.W.2d 758 (1997).33 Rosnick v. Marks, supra note 28.34 Id. See, also, Wallace v. Kato, supra note 10 ; Weyh v. Gottsch , 303 Neb. 280, 92......
-
Smeal v. Olson
...petition, in order to state a cause of action, must show some excuse tolling the operation and bar of the statute. Teater v. State, 252 Neb. 20, 559 N.W.2d 758 (1997); Meyer Bros. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 250 Neb. 389, 551 N.W.2d 1 (1996). Smeal met this pleading requirement by alleging in hi......