BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Adam B. Schiff, Chairman
1997-98 Regular Session
SB 1939 S
Senator Alpert B
As Amended March 23, 1998
Hearing Date: May 12, 1998 1
Code of Civil Procedure 9
JMR:lgp 3
9
SUBJECT
Time for commencement of actions: domestic violence
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that in any civil action for
recovery of damages suffered as a result of domestic
violence, the time for commencement of the action would be
within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or
reasonably should have discovered that an injury or illness
resulted from an act of domestic violence by the defendant.
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the Legislature extended the one-year statute of
limitations for personal injury cases to a three-year
statute of limitations for injuries resulting from acts of
domestic violence. (SB 924 (Petris) Ch. 602, Stats. 1995.)
The stated need for increasing the statute of limitations
was that the one-year statute of limitations made it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, for victims of
domestic violence to seek redress for their injuries. This
is because persons abused by their intimate partners often
are trapped in a cycle of power and control by their
batterers and will almost always be too frightened to bring
an action against the batterer during the course of the
relationship.
The supporters of SB 924 stated that, even after escaping
from the relationship, the victim of domestic violence
could not commence a civil action within one year for fear
of retaliation. Further, supporters argued that violence
often increases after the point of separation, continuing
to increase for up to two years. For these reasons, the
supporters of SB 924 argued that a longer statute of
limitations was necessary as it would appropriately allow a
victim more time in which to file a claim.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that in any civil action for recovery
of damages suffered as a result of domestic violence, the
time for commencement of the action shall be within three
years from the date of the last act of domestic violence by
the defendant against the plaintiff that gave rise to the
cause of action. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.15.
All further references are to the Code of Civil Procedure
unless otherwise noted.)
This bill would provide that in any civil action for
recovery of damages suffered as a result of domestic
violence, the time for commencement of the action would be
within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or
reasonably should have discovered that an injury or illness
resulted from an act of domestic violence by the defendant.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for legislation
The author states that the three-year statute of
limitations for civil actions based on domestic violence
has proven to be too short in many cases. In particular,
the author cites cases where the injury to the victim
does not fully develop, or is not known to the victim,
for more than three years after the last act of violence.
For example, the author points to cases of degenerative
disc disease and emotional distress, where the illness or
disease may not develop immediately after the act of
violence.
The author believes that allowing the victim to commence
an action within three years of the date the plaintiff
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that an
injury or illness resulted from an act of domestic
violence would be more equitable and would allow these
victims to recover the damages they have actually
incurred as a result of the defendant.
2. The concept of extending the limitation period within
this bill is not new to California law
Code of Civil Procedure Section 312 states that civil
actions can only be commenced within the prescribed
periods "after the cause of action shall have accrued."
The cause of action ordinarily accrues when, under the
substantive law, the wrongful act is done and the
obligations or liability arises. (3 Witkin, Actions,
California Procedure (4th Edition) 459.) Thus, accrual
is determined by the defendant's acts, and the general
rule is that the statute will begin to run despite the
plaintiff's ignorance of his or her cause of action or of
the identity of the wrongdoer. ( Lattin v. Gillette
(1892) 95 Cal. 317, 320.)
However, to avoid the harsh and unjust effects of a rigid
adherence to the general rule of accrual at the time of
the wrongful act, a number of departures have been made
by statute and judicial decision. (3 Witkin, Actions,
California Procedure (4th Edition) 462.) For example:
Accrual on discovery of the facts, including
construction defect cases and actions based on fraud
or mistake;
Accrual when damage results, including some
insurance and professional negligence cases;
Accrual postponed by condition precedent, such
as filing a claim with a governmental body where the
limitation period would begin to run only from the
time of rejection of that claim; and
Accrual postponed as to particular plaintiff,
as in the case where an adverse possessor may start
the period running against a life tenant, but not
against the remainderman.
Thus, the modification to the statute of limitations in
this bill is similar to the concept set forth in several
other limitations statutes, providing that the time of
commencement of an action runs from the time the
plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, the
injury. For example, this bill would be similar to the
statute of limitations in actions to recover damages for
sexual abuse of minors. In such sexual abuse cases, due
to repressed memory, it is argued that the victim may be
unaware of the acts which caused the injury for many
years after the date on which the actual sexual abuse
took place. Thus, the statute for actions to recover
damages based on sexual abuse of minors was recently
modified to provide that the action shall be commenced
within eight years after the plaintiff attains the age of
majority or within three years after plaintiff discovers
or reasonably should have discovered that psychological
injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was
caused by the sexual abuse, whichever is later. (Section
340.1.)
Actions for injuries resulting from acts of domestic
violence are analogous to the sexual abuse cases. For
example, supporters of the bill assert that survivors of
domestic violence are often unable to bring claims within
the limitation period because they have been so severely
traumatized that it may take several years before they
even realize that the emotional distress and other
injuries they are suffering from are results of the
domestic violence.
Moreover, the extent of certain injuries which are common
to victims of domestic violence, such as degenerative
disc disease, do not fully materialize or develop for
many years. Studies show that this disease may not
develop for five to seven years after the initial trauma
or injury. Thus, supporters believe that this bill would
avoid the harsh and unjust effects of a rigid adherence
to the three-year statute of limitations in cases where
the victim did not know, or could not reasonably have
known, of his or her injuries.
Support: None Known
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: Author
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: None Known
**************