By Marcus Rayner | WHYY

July 5, 2013 

 

Recent high-profile sexual abuse cases have spawned a lot of misinformation about what victims are entitled to under the law, and who is ultimately responsible for a perpetrator's acts. This was apparent in Rob Tornoe's story.

 

First and foremost, there is a difference between the civil statute of limitations and the criminal statute. The criminal court is where sexual abuse victims have their

day in court, confront their abuser, and bring him to justice. It's the venue for punishing pedophiles for their crimes and imprisoning them. It encourages other victims to come forward and seek justice. And it prevents the perpetrator from soliciting new child victims.

 

Sexual abuse is one of humanity's most egregious crimes. It can take years for victims to come forward. This is why New Jersey does not have a criminal statute of limitations for sexual assault. A child who was molested by an adult can press charges against that adult at any time. It's never too late to prosecute a child molester. And this right is not in question.

 

 

What Rob Tornoe fails to realize is that it's the civil statute of limitations that is up for debate in the New Jersey Legislature - not the criminal statute as he implies. This is the branch of our justice system that allows individuals to seek financial compensation. The legislation Mr. Tornoe references would allow an adult to file a lawsuit seeking financial compensation from crimes under an expansive set of circumstances, and from a wider pool of defendants.

 

The current statute of limitations for civil cases is two years from the date-of-discovery - this would be two years from the time an adult realizes they have been injured as the result of a sexual assault. Many people believe that this is too short a window and that victims have very real financial burdens they should not be forced to shoulder.

 

But instead of crafting legislation to extend the amount of time victims have to a file civil lawsuit against their abuser to 10 or even 30 years, the Legislature is considering a trial attorney-backed initiative that would leave all institutions that serve children vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits.

 

 

Changing the way homeowners can be compensated for their losses when part of their property is seized, the state's highest court today overturned a $375,000 award to a Harvey Cedars couple who argued they should be paid for losing their ocean views.

 

The ruling, which updates the 121-year-old method of calculating losses for the partial taking of a property, throws out the $375,000 jury award to the couple for the loss of their ocean view due to the construction of 22-foot high dunes there.

   

Read More 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Restaurant.com Can Be Liable for Illegal Limits on Discount Coupons 

By Michael Booth | New Jersey Law Journal

July 10, 2013

 

Discount restaurant coupons fall within the province of a New Jersey law policing consumer-goods contracts, the state Supreme Court held Tuesday.

 

The justices said that customers have a remedy under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act for coupon issuer's improper restrictions on consumer rights.

 

The opinion, in Shelton v. Restaurant.com, A-123-10, came in response to a request by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which is reviewing the dismissal of a class-action suit against Restaurant.com, an online coupon seller.

Lead plaintiffs Larissa Shelton and Gregory Bohus claim that the website, by stating the coupons were good for only a year, violated a state law requiring that gift certificates and gift cards be redeemable for two years.

 

They sued in Middlesex County Superior Court, seeking penalties under the TCCWNA. After the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano dismissed it, finding the TCCWNA applies only to tangible property...

 

"Plaintiffs and other purchasers paid money to Restaurant.com, which in turn issued a certificate for use at a participating restaurant. Upon presentation, the purchaser receives goods, namely food and drinks, at a discounted price," Judge Mary Cuff wrote for the court...

 

Cuff said the TCCWNA, enacted in 1982, was part of an area of law that was being "treated aggressively" by the Legislature. She noted Gov. Brendan Byrne's signing statement that the TCCWNA was meant to "strengthen the provisions" of the Consumer Fraud Act.