Pleading Requirements in Child Abuse Cases Up For Grabs

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide what a plaintiff claiming child abuse must plead regarding the defendant non-perpetrator's notice of the abuser's proclivities. Cal. CCP section 340.1 reinstates certain time-barred causes of action, by adult plaintiffs molested as children, against the abusers and those considered responsible for the abuser. Under the statute, the non-perpetrator must have had notice (actual knowledge ?) of the abuser's wrongful acts and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a recurrence. The issue to be decided is what standard must the plaintiff meet in order to adequately allege the non-perpetrator defendant had the requisite notice. Doe v. City of Los Angeles, S142689, formerly at 137 Cal.App.4th 438, review granted 6/21/06.

Here are the issues, as described in the court's weekly summary:

"Were plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Los Angeles and the Boy Scouts of America for sexual abuse by a city police officer while they participated in police department programs in the 1970’s barred by the statute of limitations, or did plaintiffs sufficiently invoke the provisions of CCP 340.1 (b)(2), which permits the revival of certain claims of sexual abuse that would otherwise be barred where the defendant `knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person'”?