The Statute of Limitations and Mary Cain's Claims

Bump.

She's free to make up any date she wants to fit the lawsuit.

Legal Moran wrote:

Are there any Oregon lawyers out there?

It looks like Cain's lawyers are hanging their hats on using the "discovery rule" and the date March 8, 2018 as the date Cain "reasonbly discovered" that Salazar's conduct was the cause of her injuries which manifested themselves well before that date -- lets not forget she returned home by the Fall of 2015. My understanding is that the discovery rule is applied only in the rarest of cases.

The Oregon statute of limitations for Tort Claims is two years. The 2018 date does not help with her those claims even if the discovery rule argument is successful.

As for her statutory discrimination claim, it looks like Oregon extended the statute of limitations from 1 to 5 years in 2019. Does this apply retroactively and does the discovery rule even apply to these type of claims?

The timer for filing of civil claims usually starts from the date the tort was alleged to have occurred.

That date is usually known and definite - for example, a claim for injury from a car accident caused by someone else.

Discovery in legal terms usually refers to a controlled process for obtaining documents to support the action.

In this case, what's referred to by "discovery rule" is a special circumstance when the complainant did and could only have reasonably known of the tort after the fact. For example, a hidden defect not plainly observable, causing loss, and arising from an other's negligence or intentional sub-standard practice/materials.

In this case, Cain was well aware of the material, contentious actions at the time -- but it's said their adverse impact on her could not have been learned of until much later, such as through professional counselling creating new awareness.

However, Cain was vociferously complaining about Salazar, Nike and how their supposed deleterious actions affected her as far back as 2018, so it seems unclear what the legal basis is for filing a suit so late.

Not an OR attorney.

It is called the "discovery rule". In the personal injury context, limitations can be tolled until you figure out that your injuries were cause by the tortfeasor. For example, thousands of people have experienced difficulty breathing for years, but did not get in to see a doctor and find out they had mesothelioma until years after they were exposed to asbestos at work.

Cain will argue that for years she thought that she was just a failed runner who couldn't handle the pressure of pro running or turned pro too young. She will argue that she did not realize that she was the subject of abuse and that abuse caused her injuries until years later. Similar arguments have been made in cases like the Nassar abuse where the athletes thought that what was happening to them was normal at the time and did not come to the realization that it was actually sexual assault until years later when other athletes came out with allegations.

In cases like this, limitations are not what you want to hang your hat on. Unless the plaintiff makes a stunning admission during a deposition or has dated documents that make an admission, the question of limitations and the discovery rule are a fact issue for the jury. Juries will be inclined to look the other way when the defendant's conduct is bad and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on the discovery rule.

Exactly.

I think Cain's case on its face has more merit than people may admit. She was still a teeeanger when she entered into the contract with Nike (if I recall she was 16) and Salazar had a tremendous amount of control. She even lived with him. Now maybe she is a really bad witness and the jury hates her. Or maybe Nike can prove she is lying. That aside, pressuring a female athlete at her age to severely restrict her caloric intact and maintain an unhealthy weight is a recipe for disaster and really debilitating injuries. We talk about that endlessly on this site.

Based on this, it sounds like Mary has a 60/40 shot of getting some kind of award. I think had she argued the same case, but requested $1M instead of $20M, her odds of winning go up a TON. But $20M seems outlandish to a jury. $1M sounds more reasonable, one could argue.

True but the jury can tailor their award if they decide to give one based on the case presented (if it gets that far). The jury can give Mary something and it doesn't have to be $20 million.

olymaratrialstop100[andHarvardLaw2L] wrote:

jecht wrote:

Based on this, it sounds like Mary has a 60/40 shot of getting some kind of award. I think had she argued the same case, but requested $1M instead of $20M, her odds of winning go up a TON. But $20M seems outlandish to a jury. $1M sounds more reasonable, one could argue.

True but the jury can tailor their award if they decide to give one based on the case presented (if it gets that far). The jury can give Mary something and it doesn't have to be $20 million.

Note that when the judge reviews the award that the jury has determined and finds it inadequate (too low or too high) as a matter of law he or she may adjust it. Therefore, if Mary gets a ton of money from a sympathetic jury but the presiding judge determines that the jury did not correctly adhere to his or her award instructions then the judge may lower the award to a reasonable amount.

Color me shocked if there is ever a jury in this case. I think that Nike's lawyers will fight it on procedural grounds/statute of limitations, etc., but once those routes are exhausted they will settle. And I'll bet that we never know for how much.

Juries are wild cards.

Jurors are inexpert in legal matters - a briefing by a Judge does not make them instant lawyers. The same qualities which enshrine the Jury system, a spectrum of experience and cross-sectional views, also bring emotion and bias into play.

Trial by Jury is an imperfect system which can and does lead to imperfect results.

That unpredictability often works in favour of a complainant, particularly in civil matters, and more particularly involving big business.

And this is why Cain's lawyers filed with a Demand for Jury Trial.

Cain probably alleges harms that occurred when she was a minor which may change the statute of limitations significantly. This will never see a jury. If Nike can’t get it dismissed they will settle - no way do they want to deal with the bad publicity which could be worth much more than $20 mil. Cain will have a number (lower than $20 mil) that she will accept. Nike will play hard ball to start as they don’t want copycat suits although my guess is Cain being a minor is a significant factor which applies to very few athletes.

tripstop wrote:

Cain probably alleges harms that occurred when she was a minor which may change the statute of limitations significantly...

You are right: Under Oregon law (ORS 12.117), Cain has until she turns 40 to file for damages from abuse she suffered as a minor.

She was a minor for the first year and a half that she worked with Salazar, starting in the fall of 2012. She signed a contract with Nike in November, 2013. She turned 18 on May 3, 2014, and moved to Portland later that summer.

The Oregon statute defines child abuse an any "intentional" act that results in:

(A) Any physical injury to a child; or

(B) Any mental injury to a child which results in observable and substantial impairment of the child’s mental or psychological ability to function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture of the child;

In Oregon, things are very flaky, so I would not be surprised (depending on the judge) if it holds up.

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

tripstop wrote:

Cain probably alleges harms that occurred when she was a minor which may change the statute of limitations significantly...

You are right: Under Oregon law (ORS 12.117), Cain has until she turns 40 to file for damages from abuse she suffered as a minor.

She was a minor for the first year and a half that she worked with Salazar, starting in the fall of 2012. She signed a contract with Nike in November, 2013. She turned 18 on May 3, 2014, and moved to Portland later that summer.

The Oregon statute defines child abuse an any "intentional" act that results in:

(A) Any physical injury to a child; or

(B) Any mental injury to a child which results in observable and substantial impairment of the child’s mental or psychological ability to function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture of the child;

If Mary did not move to Portland until after sbe turned 18, I do not see how this statute helps her in this case because I think all of the allegedly abusive conduct occurred during the brief time she was in Oregon.

I still don't see the "abuse". She admitted and wanted to be the GOAT. Guess what? Training to be a Pro Athlete is self-inflicted abuse on the body. My HS coach did not know much about rest and recovery. Yet, some of the athletes still exceled under him while personally I burned out very easily under his program. Never in my mind though I was being abused. MeToo Feminism is not progress for women.

I think she has a strong case of abuse and general negligence. Nike was responsible for the management of the Nike Oregon Project. There was no certified psychologist or nutritionist on staff. She was a minor child. If I were on the jury I would give her the full $20 Million. Nike was negligent . The constant fat shaming was very damaging to a 16 - 18 year old female. The fact she was cuting herself and was suicidal is very dangerous. They should have immediately called her parents and brought her to a psychiatrist. The whole NOP sounds like an abusive cult. I hope she wins.

BTW, $20 million is nothing to Nike.

Reading the title I couldn't help myself.