Caseflicks

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • 1989

Pederson v. Time, Inc.

532 N.E.2d 1211 | 404 Mass. 14 | 1989 Mass. LEXIS 21

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that mental incapacity can toll limitations when it prevents a plaintiff from understanding her legal rights, and that sparse evidence of ordinary functioning cannot resolve that fact-intensive question on summary judgment.

Background

Edith Pederson, acting as guardian for Alice Totten, sued Time, Inc., Life magazine reporter David Friend, photographer Michael O’Brien, and the Department of Mental Health. The suit arose from a 1981 Life article about the treatment of mentally ill people that identified Totten, discussed her schizophrenia, and printed a photograph of her tied spreadeagled to a hospital bed while she was an inpatient at Northampton State Hospital.

The surviving claims against Time, Friend, and O’Brien alleged intentional invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the claims against the Department alleged violations of the Fair Information Practices Act. Each claim carried a three-year limitations period. Because the article was published no later than April 21, 1981, the complaint filed on April 27, 1984, was timely only if Totten’s insanity tolled the statute for the six-day period from April 21 through April 27, 1981.

The Superior Court granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding no genuine factual dispute that Totten was not insane for tolling purposes. Pederson appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether “insanity” under G. L. c. 260, § 7 includes a mental condition that prevents a plaintiff from understanding her legal rights.

Holding

Yes. For purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, insanity means any mental condition that precludes the plaintiff from understanding the nature or effects of her acts and therefore from comprehending her legal rights.

Reasoning

The tolling statute did not itself define “insane,” and the Supreme Judicial Court had not previously supplied a definition. The court adopted the Appeals Court’s formulation in Hornig v. Hornig, which treats the term functionally rather than as limited to a particular psychiatric diagnosis.

Under that standard, the relevant inquiry was not simply whether Totten had been diagnosed with schizophrenia or was generally able to perform everyday functions. The question was whether, during the pertinent period, her mental condition prevented her from understanding the nature and consequences of her acts and from comprehending her right to bring suit.

Issue #2

Whether Pederson adequately raised statutory tolling based on Totten’s mental incapacity in the pleadings.

Holding

Yes. The complaint sufficiently put the defendants on notice that Totten’s mental incapacity was the basis for tolling.

Reasoning

The defendants argued that the complaint did not invoke the tolling statute with enough technical precision. The court rejected that argument because Massachusetts pleading rules require fair notice of the theory of the claim, not a detailed statutory formula.

By alleging Totten’s mental incapacity, the complaint identified the factual basis for the tolling theory and gave the defendants adequate notice. Thus, the issue of Totten’s sanity was properly before the court on summary judgment.

Issue #3

Whether summary judgment was proper on the ground that there was no genuine dispute over Totten’s sanity during the six-day period necessary to toll the limitations period.

Holding

No. The defendants did not establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact concerning Totten’s sanity from April 21 through April 27, 1981.

Reasoning

A summary-judgment movant must affirmatively show that no genuine dispute exists on every material issue, even where the movant would not bear the burden of persuasion at trial. Although Pederson would ultimately have to prove facts taking the action outside the statute of limitations, the defendants first had to demonstrate that no triable issue existed.

The evidence submitted by the defendants concerning March through June 1981 showed only that Totten performed certain functions reasonably well. It did not specifically address the critical six days after the claims accrued, nor did it establish that Totten then understood the nature or effects of her acts and her legal rights.

Because insanity is a question of mental state, summary judgment is especially disfavored when that state of mind is a necessary element of the dispute. The record left open a factual question for the factfinder, so the Superior Court’s judgments had to be reversed and the case remanded.