Sexual Abuse Salem Virginia Lawyer Assault Intentional Infliction
On January, 1985, plaintiff son “x” filed a Motion for Judgment against his father, “B” alleging causes of action arising from sexual abuse. A voluntary nonsuit was taken in that case in 1986. The present Motion for Judgment was filed on 1986, again alleging causes of action arising from sexual abuse when the son was a minor. The Motion for Judgment contains three counts, namely battery; sexual assault; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The father filed a Plea in Bar on the grounds that the statute of limitations for all three causes of action has now run.
Whether the son’s right was barred by limitation and whether the retroactive application of § 8.01-249(6) violates the father’s due process rights?
The court accepted the father’s plea in bar. The court found that, as the son was a minor at that time, the two-year statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-229(A)(2)(a) until he reached the age of majority in 1982. The court also found that the son had knowledge of the fact and cause of his injuries on or before 1988 because he sought help for psychological problems from a counselor. The court further determined that the son’s right to bring a cause of action lapsed in 1990. The court noted that retroactive application of Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-249(6) would violate the father’s due process rights.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.