## Facts

- Mary Lickteig and Robert Kolar, Jr. are biological siblings who grew up together in Minnesota.
- Lickteig alleged Kolar repeatedly sexually abused her from about 1974 to 1977, when she was approximately eight to eleven years old.
- Lickteig also alleged Kolar sexually abused and raped her older sisters, including incidents occurring in her presence.
- In deposition testimony, Kolar admitted he had sexually abused Lickteig and her sisters during childhood.
- Decades later, Lickteig filed a civil tort action in federal district court in Minnesota, asserting claims arising from the childhood abuse.
- Kolar asserted defenses including the statute of limitations and Minnesota’s intrafamilial immunity doctrine.
- The federal district court dismissed, concluding intrafamilial immunity barred the claims and that Minnesota did not recognize a distinct claim for “sibling sexual abuse.”
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit certified questions of Minnesota law to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota’s intrafamilial immunity doctrine bars an adult sibling’s civil action against another sibling for intentional sexual abuse committed during childhood.
2. Whether Minnesota common law permits civil tort liability for sexual abuse committed by a sibling, using established intentional tort theories.
3. To what extent limitations and tolling principles affect civil claims arising from childhood sexual abuse asserted many years later.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court answered the certified questions by holding that intrafamilial immunity does not bar a civil action between siblings for intentional sexual abuse committed during childhood.
- The court determined Minnesota common law provides civil remedies for sexual abuse through existing intentional tort causes of action (e.g., assault, battery, and related theories), regardless of sibling status.
- The court did not enter judgment on the merits because it was answering certified questions; the effect was to remove intrafamilial-immunity and “no cause of action” grounds for dismissal, leaving other defenses (including limitations issues) for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Intrafamilial immunity in Minnesota is limited and does not extend to shield a sibling from civil liability for intentional sexual abuse of a child.
- The rationales for intrafamilial immunity (family harmony, parental authority, and protection of family finances) do not justify barring suits based on intentional, criminal sexual abuse within the family.
- Sexual abuse is actionable under Minnesota common law through established intentional tort doctrines; the absence of a labeled tort for “sibling sexual abuse” does not eliminate civil remedies.
- The existence of criminal prohibitions or statutory sexual-abuse provisions does not preclude overlapping common-law tort claims seeking compensation and deterrence.
- Certified-question decisions resolve state-law questions but do not adjudicate the parties’ ultimate liability; remaining defenses, including limitations, are addressed in the underlying case.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that intrafamilial immunity does not bar civil claims for intentional childhood sexual abuse between siblings and that Minnesota common law allows such claims to proceed under established intentional tort theories, with other defenses (including statutes of limitations) left for further adjudication.


Lickteig v. Kolar, 782 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. 2010)