Tort – Sexual Assault & Battery – Emotional Distress – Tolling Provision

A woman suing a man in tort for allegedly breaking into her apartment and threatening and sexually assaulting her in 1992 has her suit dismissed as time-barred; her allegation that the man concealed his identity until he confessed to the crimes in 1999 does not qualify her for the tolling provision in Va. Code Sect. 8.01-229(D).

Plaintiff asserts defendant deliberately concealed his identity from her when he committed his crimes and he evaded capture by police for nearly seven years and that these acts tolled the statute of limitations. Defendant responds that plaintiff failed to establish that his conduct constituted a direct or indirect means to obstruct the filing of plaintiff’s tort actions within the meaning of Va. Code Sect. 8.01-229(D) and therefore the circuit court did not err in dismissing the motion for judgment. We agree with defendant.

A plaintiff who seeks to rely on the tolling provision in Code Sect. 8.01-229() must establish that defendant undertook an affirmative act designed or intended, directly or indirectly, to obstruct the plaintiff’s right to file her action.

In this case, plaintiff presented no evidence that defendant used any direct or indirect means to obstruct the filing of her motion for judgment. At best, plaintiff pled in her motion for judgment that defendant wore a mask during the commission of his heinous crimes, but his use of the mask was intended to conceal his identity and not to obstruct her filing of an action within the intendment of Code Sect. 8.01-229(D).

Grimes v. Suzukawa (Hassell) No. 002536, Sept. 14, 2001; Alexandria Cir. Ct. (Farmer) Philip B. Leiser for appellant; Stephen G. Cochran for appellee VLW 001-6-113, 4 pp.

Click here for the full text of the opinion.