The Kansas City Star reported on October 4, 2010 that a woman has filed a lawsuit against two former priests in Kansas City, claiming that the two priests "sexually abused" her over 30 years ago. The woman, now 49, had apparently repressed the painful memory of the abuse until last year. Filing of such a personal injury lawsuit generally raises issues involving statute of limitations, or filing deadlines. This complex area of the law can be successfully navigated such that a plaintiff's interests are served to the fullest extent of the law by an attorney who has experience.

In New Jersey, the statute of limitations for a sexual assault case like the one filed in Kansas City above, is generally 2 years from the date of the actual assault. However, New Jersey recognizes that statues of limitations may be tolled by the "discovery rule," and further, that the statute of limitations may be tolled when the plaintiff is suffering from a disability which would prevent him or her from filing suit within the time limitations.

The "discovery rule" will toll a statute of limitations for the period of time that the plaintiff is unaware that he or she sustained an injury or unaware that a specific injury was caused by someone else's wrongdoing. Generally, the usual case in which the case the discovery rule would apply would be medical malpractice where a doctor leaves an instrument in a patient. The patient may suffer symptoms as a result of the foreign object immediately after the surgery, but not be aware of the foreign object's presence until many years later; more than 2 years after the surgery. Under those circumstances, although the symptoms of the injury were known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not aware that someone else's actions negligence caused the injury until the object is detected.

In another example, the "discovery rule" would apply where a potential wrongful act was known but where the damages from that wrongful act were not discovered until well after the applicable statute of limitations. An example of this would be where there is an exposure to a toxic chemical, but that the symptoms and injury do not expose themselves until more than 2 years after the exposure takes place. In this scenario, the statute of limitations would be tolled until such time that the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that their injuries were related to the toxic exposure.

In addition to the above, New Jersey law states that a statute of limitations will not run against a minor or incompetent, meaning that someone is under a disability that prevents them from being aware of their legal rights or preventing them from exercising their legal rights. Therefore, generally, statutes of limitations for injuries sustained by minors will not toll until that minor's 20th birthday, because that would be 2 years after the minor's "disability" is removed.

With regard to the sexual abuse by priests and others many years ago, plaintiffs are able to file these suits based on either one or both of the above referenced statute of limitations tolling mechanisms. In some cases, the plaintiff will argue that they were not aware of their damages or had otherwise repressed memory or awareness of the sexual act until such time that it was ultimately revealed through psychiatric or psychological treatment. Other plaintiffs will argue that the emotional distress that they suffered at the hands of the molester caused an emotional disability that prevented them from filing suit or being aware of their legal rights within the applicable statute of limitations. Under either scenario, the standard for proving the disability or tolling of the statute of limitations is a great one, and an attorney must take great care to do it the properly. Accordingly, it is best that expert legal counsel be retained as soon as possible in the event that you or someone close to you finds them in such a situation.

Many personal injury cases in our legal system involve slips and falls on ice or snow in shopping centers or malls. In a recent case, a court refused to extend the duty of removing that ice and snow to a tenant in a multi-tenant shopping center where the tenant had no contractual duty to do so.

Generally, in any case involving a negligent or dangerous condition of real property in common areas of a shopping center, the owner of the property would be legally responsible for injuries sustained as a result of same. In this regard, the owner has a non-delegable duty to users of the property to either make the dangerous conditions safe or appropriately warn the users of the property of the condition's existence. This basically means that they will not be absolved of liability if they hire someone such as a management or maintenance company to fulfill their duty. They also cannot absolve themselves of liability by placing such responsibility on their tenants in a lease. As the owner of the property, they will ultimately be responsible. However, depending upon the circum stances, others may also be responsible to the injured party for their breach of a duty. For instance, if a landowner hires a snow removal contractor to remove ice and snow from a parking lot, the snow removal contractor will also be responsible if they failed to properly remove same.

Despite the fact that the landowner will always be legally responsible for the conditions of their property in a common area, there are many strategic reasons that attorneys bring suit against others when their client's injuries arise in a common area of a shopping center. Such considerations include availability of insurance, who has day-to-day control of the property and the status of the injured user of the property.

In the recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals case of Holmes v. Kimco Realty, the plaintiff slipped and fell in a common area parking lot of a shopping center. Plaintiff's counsel sued Lowe's, which was the tenant closest to the area of the plaintiff's fall. In fact, a sign in the area of the fall indicated that Lowe's customers regularly and routinely used the area exclusive to all other tenants. The lease between Lowe's and the landowner did not require Lowe's to remove ice or snow from common areas although they were responsible for the cost of same through a CAM charge (Common Area Maintenance charge). For some reason unclear in the decision, the plaintiff's attorney was unable to properly identify the landowner before the statute of limitations expired. Thus, it was important that liability be placed upon the tenant for the plaintiff's case to survive.

Under these facts the court held that a tenant has no duty to remove ice or snow or to warn its patrons of its presence despite the fact that its patrons exclusive used the area. The court relied on prior case law and the fact that the lease agreement between Lowe's and the landlord did not require Lowe's to take any action with regard to snow or ice removal. Prior case law suggested that a tenant would not have responsibility to remove ice or snow from a common area sidewalk regardless of how close it was to the tenant's front door.

Despite current case law, we would suggest a different result. A tenant in possession such as a Lowe's is in the best position to determine the condition of the property around them. Thus, they are also in the best position to warn of or rectify any dangerous ice or snow conditions. Despite the fact that a landlord and tenant may make their own contract as to who has the responsibility between them as to the removal of ice and snow, the general public has no protection if the contractually responsible party fails to uphold their contractual duty. Thus, under the court's holding, a tenant who has no contractual responsibility to remove ice and snow from common areas around its store including its parking lot and sidewalks may open its doors for business regardless of the site conditions with no repercussions.

In light of the above, it is important to see a competent attorney as early as possible after such an incident so that the proper investigation can be done and all of you rights can be preserved.