SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) – An alleged sexual assault victim won’t be granted extra time to sue, even after arguing people in her position often need more time to come forward.
The California Fourth Appellate District ruled Dec. 28 not to grant a plaintiff known as “N.G.” relief from the requirements set forth in the Government Claims Act as she tries to sue San Diego County.
N.G. says she was assaulted by a deputy sheriff named Richard Fischer and sought damages for emotional trauma. But the court said she failed to timely file a claim with the county prior to bringing her lawsuit.
“(W)e conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that N.G. failed to act as a reasonably prudent person by waiting to come forward until Fischer’s other victims had done so,” says an opinion authored by Justice Joan Irion.
N.G. submitted her claim in June 2018 with the county, alleging Fischer sexually assaulted her in October 2017. However, that meant her claim was 81 days past the six-month period for filing.
It was alleged Fischer pulled over N.G. on a tip from her husband that she was driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. N.G. had just had an argument with her husband and was driving her 12-year-old daughter to a motel.
Fischer showed up at the motel room twice after the traffic stop. On the second visit, he “dry hump(ed) her, and then put his hand down her pants,” court records say, before warning her not to tell anyone when she resisted.
This warning, which allegedly included him telling her “I know how to find you,” scared her from reporting the incident. She also worried about having her daughter, who was in the motel room, learn about the alleged assault, which took place in the room’s bathroom.
Other women came forward, and Fischer pleaded guilty four felony charges in September. When N.G. saw a news report about the allegations, she decided to submit her claim to the county.
Carlton Hershman, a retired police detective, testified that it is common for victims of sexual assault to delay reporting it. But the trial and appellate courts ruled that doesn’t justify not complying with the six-month requirement.
“Although we in no way make light of the significant emotional hurdles faced by victims of sexual assault, we also cannot fault the trial court for exercising its discretion in this case to conclude that the psychological state in which N.G. found herself after Fischer’s sexual assault did not ‘substantially interfere[ ] with [her] ability to function in daily life, take care of [her] personal and business affairs, or seek out legal counsel’ and did not rise to the ‘exceptional showing’ required for relief based on psychological disability or emotional trauma,” Irion wrote.