# Petersen v. Bruen

> Nevada Supreme Court · May 10, 1990 · 106 Nev. 271

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627563

## Case

- **Full name:** TOR PETERSEN, Appellant, v. NED BRUEN, Respondent
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 10, 1990
- **Citations:** 106 Nev. 271; 792 P.2d 18; 1990 Nev. LEXIS 47
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rose
- **Judges:** Rose, Springer, Steffen, Young, Mowbray
- **Cited by:** 113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627563

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that "Mhe general rule concerning statutes of limitation is that a cause of action accrues when the wrong occurs and a party sustains injuries for which relief could be sought," but that the discovery rule is an exception to this general rule for accrual and that wh…
- finding that the statute of limitations for 10 conversion is discovery based

## Opinion text

Rose, J.,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. However, I would prefer to adopt a rule that tolls the running of the statute of limitations until the discovery of the cause of the victim’s psychological problems as has been done in cases from other jurisdictions such as Hammer v. Hammer, 418 N.W.2d 23 (Wis.Ct.App. 1987), rev. denied, 428 N.W.2d 552 (Wis. 1988), and Meiers-Post v. Schafer, 427 N.W.2d 606 (Mich.Ct.App. 1988); or until the victim can psychologically address his child sexual assault (CSA) and assert it publicly. Since Petersen’s discovery of the causal connection between his psychological problems and the CSA occurred in 1987 and his complaint was filed in July, 1988, the lower court may well find that this action was timely filed if the running of the statute of limitations is tolled until the discovery of the cause of the injury. The lower court could also find that sufficient evidence supports a claim that Mr. Petersen could not psychologically confront and make public the prior CSA until shortly before the complaint was filed. Neither *283 factual determination has been made in this case. I would also apply the tolling of the statute of limitations as stated in all CSA cases, whether the assault was established by clear and convincing evidence or simply by a preponderance of the evidence.
The majority opinion is very persuasive in advocating the elimination of the statute of limitations in all CSA cases where the assault can be established by clear and convincing evidence. However, I would defer the decision on the actual adoption of that position, in this or a later case, until this court is presented with a child sexual assault case that is determined to be barred by the statute of limitations even after application of the above stated rules.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627563. Public record. Not legal advice.