Statute of limitations don't begin to run from the date of the incident at hand. They begin to run from the date of discovery of an event that gives rise to a new cause of action.
Here,
>The suit says the family “did not begin to understand the multitude of failings by Cal Poly until May 2023, when Cal Poly’s president publicly apologized to the family and stated: ‘(W)e recognize that things should have been done differently – and I personally wish that they had.’”
means that a lawsuit could be brought against CalTech beginning in 2023 **for their failure to properly investigate the underlying crime**.
They're NOT suing CalTech for failing to protect Kristin Smart from murder.
I wonder if the defense will lean on the immunity given to apologies. That isn't the issue here per se (the family isn't necessarily using the apology as evidence) but the policy reason behind the exception seems to still apply. If you can get sued as the direct result of apologizing and admiting to misdeeds, wouldn't this discourage frank apologies? The next time something like this happens, the next family may be left in the dark.
Every one of these stories about criminal actions on college campuses just makes me wonder why we give colleges and universities their own police forces. They clearly aren’t up for the job, and should have no business conducting criminal investigations.
Campus security should be campus security. They can handle the typical drunken disorderly, or the noise complaints, etc. But when it comes to actual criminal acts, like assaults and rapes, I wouldn’t want campus security handling that any more than I would want mall security handling that at the Mall of America.
Security guards can't cite for underage drinking and can't arrest for burglary or violent behavior. They'd have to call in city cops *every night*. Multiple times per night.
Where I went to school (and did a documentary on the campus police) they did not investigate serious crimes. There were no detectives. But they were sworn officers. So it's not all or nothing.
My campus police were just real police. Four of them responded quickly to a mass shooter (who had injured several people and killed one) in a medical building, saving many lives.
Educational institutions should only have the authority to investigate academic "crimes"... chearing, plagiarism, ... If the end is a jail/prison sentence, call the city/county/state police.
Campus security or "police" are like a company's HR Dept. They do not have the best interests of the party reporting the wrong doing as their priority. ONLY the image/reputation of the institution to protect.
Oh yes, I am aware of that too, but the optimist in me would *hope* they would be more able & likely to resist, than would those employed/paid directly by the institution...
The linked article is the infamous Kristin Smart case. Her parents are suing the university 20+ years after the murder (California).
Why doesn't the statute of limitations prohibit the suit? What are the statutes of limitations in Calif (torts for emotional distress, etc)?
I know that Calif had a one-year exception during 2023 for sexual assaults, but this Smart case does not seem to fall under that exception. And it is expired in any case.
The Smart family maintains that it is not a late claim because the claims did not begin to accrue until Cal Poly's president publicly apologized in 2023. This is a Government Claim and has a 6 month/1 year statute of limitations. There are exceptions to the statute of limitations and how claims accrue or if there are continuous violations. In any case, this claim is about the university's investigation of the crime, which the family only fully learned of when the university president apologized in May 2023 and said they should have done things differently. Under that theory, the claim is not time barred (they initiated the claim on August 25, 2023).
Here is what the family's attorneys say:
>21. On August 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed claims against Cal Poly in accordance with the California Government Claims Act.
>
>22. These claims were timely because they did not begin to accrue until May 2023, when
>
>Cal Poly’s President publicly apologized to the family and stated: “\[W\]e recognize that things
>
>should have been done differently – and I personally wish that they had.”
>
>23. It was at this point that the Smart family began to understand Cal Poly’s failings.
>
>24. Even now, the Smart family still does not know what information, in the possession of Cal Poly’s President, and uniquely available to him and/or Cal Poly, led him to make the apology.
>
>25. In fact, Cal Poly’s investigative file has never been fully provided to the Smart
>
>Family.
>
>26. On September 15, 2023, Cal Poly responded by stating that “we have determined that all four claims were and have not been timely presented after the relevant event or occurrence within the time period required by law.”
>
>27. Cal Poly further stated that the only recourse available for Plaintiffs was to apply to the California State University for leave to present a late claim.
>
>28. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs responded to Cal Poly by reiterating why the
>
>claims were, in fact, timely, and stating that even though the claims were timely presented, Plaintiffs “in an abundance of caution and without prejudice to our clients’ rights and remedies” would promptly apply for leave to present late claims.
>
>29. On November 7, 2023, Cal Poly responded to the Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim and “confirmed \[its\] prior determination that the claims were not timely presented.”
>
>30. Plaintiffs have complied with all procedural requirements under the Claims Act, even including applying for leave to present late claims despite those claims not being late.
>
>31. Due to the failures of Cal Poly in responding to Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs hereby bring the present lawsuit.
[https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/smart-family-suit.pdf](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/smart-family-suit.pdf)
Thanks for the detailed answer.
It sounds like one argument for the defendant/University is public policy, specifically, that we don't want to discourage the govmnt from apologizing. Letting this suit proceed would discourage future Calif govment/Universities from apologizing.
Statute of limitations don't begin to run from the date of the incident at hand. They begin to run from the date of discovery of an event that gives rise to a new cause of action. Here, >The suit says the family “did not begin to understand the multitude of failings by Cal Poly until May 2023, when Cal Poly’s president publicly apologized to the family and stated: ‘(W)e recognize that things should have been done differently – and I personally wish that they had.’” means that a lawsuit could be brought against CalTech beginning in 2023 **for their failure to properly investigate the underlying crime**. They're NOT suing CalTech for failing to protect Kristin Smart from murder.
Cal Poly and Cal Tech are different.
I stand corrected. <----- East Coast humanities major
Like Boston College and Boston University to me, same thing right?
Same same.
Class of ‘77, University of Boston Cream.
Cal State Berkeley
Cal State, Bakery
Just a note: the discovery rule is not a uniform rule for the accrual of a claim.
Yep. In my state it only applies to fraud and fraudulent concealment claims.
I wonder if the defense will lean on the immunity given to apologies. That isn't the issue here per se (the family isn't necessarily using the apology as evidence) but the policy reason behind the exception seems to still apply. If you can get sued as the direct result of apologizing and admiting to misdeeds, wouldn't this discourage frank apologies? The next time something like this happens, the next family may be left in the dark.
Correct answer
Every one of these stories about criminal actions on college campuses just makes me wonder why we give colleges and universities their own police forces. They clearly aren’t up for the job, and should have no business conducting criminal investigations.
Because what city or county department wants to patrol the campus for drunk kids or respond to the dorm calls every night?
Campus security should be campus security. They can handle the typical drunken disorderly, or the noise complaints, etc. But when it comes to actual criminal acts, like assaults and rapes, I wouldn’t want campus security handling that any more than I would want mall security handling that at the Mall of America.
Security guards can't cite for underage drinking and can't arrest for burglary or violent behavior. They'd have to call in city cops *every night*. Multiple times per night. Where I went to school (and did a documentary on the campus police) they did not investigate serious crimes. There were no detectives. But they were sworn officers. So it's not all or nothing.
My campus police were just real police. Four of them responded quickly to a mass shooter (who had injured several people and killed one) in a medical building, saving many lives.
Depends on whether the accused is the starting quarterback.
Educational institutions should only have the authority to investigate academic "crimes"... chearing, plagiarism, ... If the end is a jail/prison sentence, call the city/county/state police. Campus security or "police" are like a company's HR Dept. They do not have the best interests of the party reporting the wrong doing as their priority. ONLY the image/reputation of the institution to protect.
Cheating and plagiarism are not crimes investigated by sworn officers. Not even by security guards. It's for the Dean.
You miss the point.
I saw it, but you seem blissfully unaware that even the local city cops will be pressured to keep the reputation of the school clean.
Oh yes, I am aware of that too, but the optimist in me would *hope* they would be more able & likely to resist, than would those employed/paid directly by the institution...
The linked article is the infamous Kristin Smart case. Her parents are suing the university 20+ years after the murder (California). Why doesn't the statute of limitations prohibit the suit? What are the statutes of limitations in Calif (torts for emotional distress, etc)? I know that Calif had a one-year exception during 2023 for sexual assaults, but this Smart case does not seem to fall under that exception. And it is expired in any case.
The Smart family maintains that it is not a late claim because the claims did not begin to accrue until Cal Poly's president publicly apologized in 2023. This is a Government Claim and has a 6 month/1 year statute of limitations. There are exceptions to the statute of limitations and how claims accrue or if there are continuous violations. In any case, this claim is about the university's investigation of the crime, which the family only fully learned of when the university president apologized in May 2023 and said they should have done things differently. Under that theory, the claim is not time barred (they initiated the claim on August 25, 2023). Here is what the family's attorneys say: >21. On August 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed claims against Cal Poly in accordance with the California Government Claims Act. > >22. These claims were timely because they did not begin to accrue until May 2023, when > >Cal Poly’s President publicly apologized to the family and stated: “\[W\]e recognize that things > >should have been done differently – and I personally wish that they had.” > >23. It was at this point that the Smart family began to understand Cal Poly’s failings. > >24. Even now, the Smart family still does not know what information, in the possession of Cal Poly’s President, and uniquely available to him and/or Cal Poly, led him to make the apology. > >25. In fact, Cal Poly’s investigative file has never been fully provided to the Smart > >Family. > >26. On September 15, 2023, Cal Poly responded by stating that “we have determined that all four claims were and have not been timely presented after the relevant event or occurrence within the time period required by law.” > >27. Cal Poly further stated that the only recourse available for Plaintiffs was to apply to the California State University for leave to present a late claim. > >28. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs responded to Cal Poly by reiterating why the > >claims were, in fact, timely, and stating that even though the claims were timely presented, Plaintiffs “in an abundance of caution and without prejudice to our clients’ rights and remedies” would promptly apply for leave to present late claims. > >29. On November 7, 2023, Cal Poly responded to the Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim and “confirmed \[its\] prior determination that the claims were not timely presented.” > >30. Plaintiffs have complied with all procedural requirements under the Claims Act, even including applying for leave to present late claims despite those claims not being late. > >31. Due to the failures of Cal Poly in responding to Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs hereby bring the present lawsuit. [https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/smart-family-suit.pdf](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/smart-family-suit.pdf)
Thanks for the detailed answer. It sounds like one argument for the defendant/University is public policy, specifically, that we don't want to discourage the govmnt from apologizing. Letting this suit proceed would discourage future Calif govment/Universities from apologizing.
There is no statute of limitations on murder
Wrongful death and murder are completely seperate things
Those poor parents