## Facts

- John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Charles Linneman alleged they were sexually abused as children by priests serving in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
- The alleged abusers included Fathers Siegfried Widera and Franklyn Becker.
- The plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese knew of the priests’ histories of sexual misconduct with minors but continued to place or transfer them in positions allowing access to children.
- Parishioners raised concerns about the priests; the plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese responded with favorable assurances while concealing known risks.
- The plaintiffs asserted (1) negligent supervision/retention and (2) fraud (intentional misrepresentation/concealment) based on the Archdiocese’s alleged statements and omissions.
- The abuse occurred decades before suit was filed, making statutes of limitation and the discovery rule central to the case.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaints as time-barred; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether negligent supervision and related negligence claims against the Archdiocese were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, and whether the discovery rule could extend accrual beyond the last assault.
2. Whether the complaints sufficiently alleged fraud by the Archdiocese as a separate, later-accruing cause of action subject to a different limitations and discovery analysis.
3. Whether timeliness of the fraud claims could be resolved on the pleadings at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

## Decision

- Affirmed dismissal of negligent supervision and related negligence claims as time-barred.
- Held that for negligence claims tied to the assaults, accrual occurred no later than the date of the last assault, consistent with controlling precedent.
- Reversed dismissal of the fraud claims and remanded for further proceedings.
- Concluded that alleged affirmative misrepresentations and concealment could constitute an independent injury with later accrual, and that discovery and timeliness required factual development.
- A concurrence/dissent agreed in part and disagreed in part with the limitations analysis.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss, courts accept as true the complaint’s well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences and construe pleadings liberally.
- Negligent supervision/retention claims predicated on a third party’s intentional assaults accrue no later than the last assault; later recognition of an institution’s role does not restart the limitations period.
- Fraud may constitute a distinct cause of action when based on post-abuse misrepresentations or concealment that cause a separate injury.
- Fraud limitations are governed by a discovery rule tied to when the plaintiff discovered, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the fraud.
- When discovery timing and reliance-related injury cannot be determined from the pleadings, dismissal as untimely is improper at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court held that negligence-based claims tied directly to childhood sexual assaults were untimely because they accrued no later than the last assault, but it allowed claims alleging later fraud by the Archdiocese to proceed because the pleadings described potentially separate, later-accruing injuries whose timeliness could not be decided without further factual development.


John Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 734 N.W.2d 827 (Wis. 2007)