Main Menu

Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services

In Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services,[1] the supreme court held that although the statute of repose applied to a claim for apportionment of fault, the claim may be covered by the statute’s exceptions for gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. In 2000, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed Dapo in Lucas’s foster home. Several years later, according to Dapo, Lucas began sexually abusing him; however, according to Lucas, Dapo was sexually abusing her. In 2015, Dapo filed a claim against Lucas alleging that she had sexually abused him when he was a minor. Lucas subsequently filed a third-party claim against OCS for apportionment of fault, claiming that OCS had a duty to protect Dapo and negligently failed to protect him. Lucas later assigned to Dapo any rights she would have to recover on the apportionment claim in exchange for a complete release from liability for his sexual abuse claim against her. After analyzing relevant legislative history and the statute governing apportionment of damages, the supreme court concluded that the legislature intended the statute of repose to apply to apportionment claims based on personal injury, death and property damage. The court further noted that, unlike the statute of limitations, the statute of repose is intended to completely extinguish a defendant’s liability after a fixed period of time and is meant to act as an absolute bar to recovery. However, the court noted that exceptions in the statute of repose might apply, depending on unresolved issues of fact. Discussing the gross negligence exception, the court held that OCS had a duty to exercise reasonable care when placing Dapo in foster care with the Lucases. Moreover, the court held that if OCS breached this duty, it would be irrelevant that the harm did not occur until after OCS did not have that duty. Additionally, the court held that for the purposes of the breach of fiduciary duty exception, the relationship between OCS and children in its legal custody is a fiduciary relationship. Reversing the superior court, the supreme court held that the statute of repose applied to the claim of apportionment assigned to Dapo, but that the claim might fall within the gross negligence or breach of fiduciary duty exceptions.

[1] 454 P.3d 171 (Alaska 2019).

Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services

In Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services,[1] the supreme court held that although the statute of repose applied to a claim for apportionment of fault, the claim may be covered by the statute’s exceptions for gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. In 2000, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed Dapo in Lucas’s foster home. Several years later, according to Dapo, Lucas began sexually abusing him; however, according to Lucas, Dapo was sexually abusing her. In 2015, Dapo filed a claim against Lucas alleging that she had sexually abused him when he was a minor. Lucas subsequently filed a third-party claim against OCS for apportionment of fault, claiming that OCS had a duty to protect Dapo and negligently failed to protect him. Lucas later assigned to Dapo any rights she would have to recover on the apportionment claim in exchange for a complete release from liability for his sexual abuse claim against her. After analyzing relevant legislative history and the statute governing apportionment of damages, the supreme court concluded that the legislature intended the statute of repose to apply to apportionment claims based on personal injury, death and property damage. The court further noted that, unlike the statute of limitations, the statute of repose is intended to completely extinguish a defendant’s liability after a fixed period of time and is meant to act as an absolute bar to recovery. However, the court noted that exceptions in the statute of repose might apply, depending on unresolved issues of fact. Discussing the gross negligence exception, the court held that OCS had a duty to exercise reasonable care when placing Dapo in foster care with the Lucases. Moreover, the court held that if OCS breached this duty, it would be irrelevant that the harm did not occur until after OCS did not have that duty. Additionally, the court held that for the purposes of the breach of fiduciary duty exception, the relationship between OCS and children in its legal custody is a fiduciary relationship. Reversing the superior court, the supreme court held that the statute of repose applied to the claim of apportionment assigned to Dapo, but that the claim might fall within the gross negligence or breach of fiduciary duty exceptions.

[1] 454 P.3d 171 (Alaska 2019).