Robert Houllahan v. Louis E. Gelineau, Peter Cummings v. Louis E. Gelineau, Philip Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, Robert Houllahan, Peter Cummings, and Philip Edwardo, appealed from a Superior Court decision in favor of the defendants, Louis E. Gelineau et al., dismissing all claims in these consolidated cases. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the trial justice erred in dismissing the complaints as time barred. The plaintiffs also urged this court to abrogate its prior holding in the leading case of Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996), and its progeny, which serves to bar recovery against those whose conduct, plaintiffs submit, rises to the level of criminality. The plaintiffs also contended that the trial court erred in overlooking a single claim by plaintiff Edwardo that was based on New York law.<br><br>The Supreme Court held that the trial justice was correct in finding that § 9 1 51 unambiguously distinguished between perpetrator and non-perpetrator defendants and that the defendants in the cases at bar were properly classified as non-perpetrators. The Court also concluded that the defendants could not be found to be aiders and abettors because they did not knowingly, willfully, and intentionally seek, through their conduct, to accomplish the sexual abuse of the plaintiffs by the offending priests. The Supreme Court further held that even if the defendants had violated Rhode Island's penal code, their conduct still categorized them as non perpetrators.<br><br>The Supreme Court concluded that the legislative history of § 9-1-51 proved fatal to the plaintiffs' argument that the General Assembly did not intend to retroactively apply the amended statute of limitations as to perpetrator defendants only. Additionally, the Court declined the plaintiffs' appeal to abandon its settled precedent and allow claims to go forward in cases in which defendants' actions rise to the level of criminality, even if they are time-barred. Finally, the Supreme Court found that the statute of limitations was not tolled under theories of equitable estoppel or frau