BishopAccountability.org
	Limits on Clergy Lawsuits Revisited Ruling Could Create a New Wave of Litigation By Tom Heinen Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [Wisconsin] June 18, 2005 The Wisconsin Supreme Court is poised to issue an opinion that could keep the door shut on civil suits against churches for old cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy or could open a broader entryway for victims to sue not only churches but other institutions for abuse committed decades ago by volunteers, coaches and teachers. Archived Coverage Special Section: Abuse in the Catholic Church Millions of dollars are at stake. So are arguments about denial of justice for victims and the fairness of trying to defend against old allegations. In the Archdiocese of Milwaukee alone - the largest of the state's five Catholic dioceses - victims' advocates say they know of at least 80 victims who have not entered into settlements with the church. How many might be willing and able to file suits would depend on the wording of the court's opinion and details of their individual experiences. Juries nationwide in such cases have awarded anywhere from $25,000 to $2 million in damages, say attorneys representing the plaintiff. A Supreme Court ruling is likely by June 30 or early in July before the summer recess. At issue are decisions reached a decade ago by the court that greatly restricted victims' ability to sue churches. "There's case law that has changed," said Janine Geske, a Marquette University Law School distinguished professor and a former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. "The original decisions relied a lot on cases from other states. Things have happened. "It's possible they may decide to modify the law, they may clarify it, they may make exceptions. None of that would surprise me. They have taken the case because they thought they needed at least to look at it and re-speak on the issue." The issues at stake Not surprisingly, attorneys from both sides are optimistic. The case in question raises two key issues: • Whether the statute of limitations, the time period in which victims can file lawsuits, should not start running until people who were sexually abused as minors recognize the psychological injury done to them. Advocates say this often happens years after the abuse. Geske wrote a 1997 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that said the statute of limitation starts running at the time of the abuse, even for children. Three of seven current justices worked on that case: Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Jon P. Wilcox and Ann Walsh Bradley. • Whether to overturn or clarify a 1995 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling known as the Pritzlaff decision. Citing First Amendment church-state separation concerns, it dried up sexual abuse lawsuits in Wisconsin by barring most claims against churches for negligent hiring, retaining, training and supervision of clergy. Although that case involved a woman suing the Archdiocese of Milwaukee over a priest who allegedly coerced her as an adult into a sexual relationship, lower courts applied the decision to the sexual abuse of minors. Geske recused herself from the Pritzlaff case. Abrahamson and Wilcox participated. Abrahamson dissented from the majority, writing that the court didn't need to delve into the First Amendment issue, and also that First Amendment law related to religion was in flux and U.S. Supreme Court cases offered limited guidance. Anticipating change Predicting the impact of the decision is difficult, partly because the court might address only the statute of limitation, or might issue a decision that does not have broad applicability, or might not clarify if and how the decision could be applied retroactively for other victims. It appears that the decision would affect past incidents because the Wisconsin Legislature passed a new sexual abuse bill last year that applies to current and future incidents. It extended the statute of limitations in which civil lawsuits can be filed for serious child sexual abuse to age 35 from age 20. It also clarified that a church can be sued for failing to report child sexual abuse and for not preventing future abuse when it knows of a prior incident - wording that Geske said raises potential constitutional problems. If the court changes the statute of limitations interpretation, that could apply to people abused as minors by adults in a wide array of recreational, educational and social-service organizations, said John Rothstein, an attorney from Quarles & Brady, a major Milwaukee law firm, who represents the Milwaukee Archdiocese in the Supreme Court case. The plaintiff in the case is represented by attorney Jeff Anderson of St. Paul, Minn., and attorney Jim Smith of Brookfield. Smith said those non-church organizations would not face a deluge of lawsuits because they have not had the numbers of victims coming forward that the Catholic church has. They argue, among other things, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court never anticipated the impact of the Pritzlaff decision and never intended it to be applied to the sexual abuse of minors or to protect churches from such lawsuits. The plaintiff, known only as John Doe 67C, was one of 10 men who filed lawsuits accusing the Milwaukee Archdiocese of protecting a priest who sexually abused them in the 1960s and '70s, the late Father George Nuedling. When Milwaukee County Judge Michael Guolee dismissed five of the cases in 2003, the other five were consolidated with them into an appeal. At the time of the offenses, state statutes required that people sexually abused as minors file lawsuits no later than two years after their 18th birthday. Last July, the state Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld Guolee's decision. Only one plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. The others reached or were seeking archdiocesan settlements.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.