## Facts

- An adult daughter (R.V.) intervened in her parents’ divorce proceeding to assert a negligence-based tort claim alleging her father (S.V.) sexually abused her throughout childhood until age 17.
- R.V. reached age 18 in January 1985; the alleged abuse ended before she reached majority.
- Texas provided a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims; limitations was tolled during minority and began running when R.V. turned 18.
- R.V. did not file within two years of her 18th birthday and contended the discovery rule applied because she had repressed all memory of the abuse until shortly after turning 20.
- The central dispute was when R.V. knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged injury for limitations purposes, given her claimed memory repression.

## Issues

1. Whether the discovery rule may defer accrual of a childhood sexual-abuse claim when the plaintiff alleges she repressed all memory of the abuse until after limitations (tolled for minority) would otherwise have expired.
2. Whether the claim was barred as a matter of law by the two-year statute of limitations measured from the plaintiff’s 18th birthday.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court’s judgment for S.V. on limitations grounds.
- The court held the discovery rule did not save R.V.’s untimely claim on the record presented.
- The court concluded that a plaintiff’s assertion of repressed memory, standing alone, does not establish an “inherently undiscoverable” injury within Texas discovery-rule doctrine and did not satisfy the requirement of objective verifiability.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes of limitations are statutes of repose that bar stale claims and reflect a policy favoring timely litigation.
- The discovery rule is a narrow exception that defers accrual only when (1) the injury is inherently undiscoverable within the limitations period despite reasonable diligence and (2) the injury is objectively verifiable.
- “Inherently undiscoverable” is assessed categorically by the nature of the injury, not merely by a claimant’s subjective inability to recall or recognize the injury.
- “Objectively verifiable” requires proof of injury and causation through evidence independent of the plaintiff’s subjective recollections or beliefs.
- Claims resting primarily on later-recovered, allegedly repressed memories raise reliability concerns and, without independent corroboration meeting the doctrine’s requirements, do not justify deferring accrual under the discovery rule.

## Conclusion

Because R.V. sued more than two years after turning 18 and did not establish that her claimed injury was inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable under Texas discovery-rule standards, her action was barred by limitations.


S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996)