House committee hears bill to eliminate civil statute-of-limitations for sexual assault and child abuse claims

SALEM, Ore. — Lawmakers and advocates told the House Committee on Rules on May 14 that House Bill 3582 would remove civil statutes of limitation for future claims arising from child sexual abuse and adult sexual assault and would remove a legal phrase they said has been used to block accountability.

Supporters said the bill would allow survivors to bring civil claims when they are ready and would close a loophole created by language in current law. "These arbitrary deadlines don't reflect how healing works," said Representative Vanessa Hartman, the bill sponsor, during testimony in the committee.

The measure, with the dash-3 amendment described to the committee, removes the word "knowingly" from ORS 12.117 and ORS 12.118, language witnesses said has allowed some institutions to escape negligence claims even when there were clear patterns of abuse. The amendment also clarifies that claims arising before the bill's effective date remain subject to the existing statute of limitations unless there is no final judgment; if no final judgment has been entered the amendment would remove the time limit retroactively for those pending claims. The committee heard legal experts explain the amendment's technical effect.

"This is a statute of limitations. This doesn't expand a particular tort claim," said attorney Erin Olson, who represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases. "You still have to prove the underlying tort claim. It just gives you longer to prove it." Olson and other lawyers said the change is intended to restore the legislature's original intent that negligence claims against institutions that allowed abuse be cognizable.

Other expert witnesses described the effects of trauma and delayed disclosure. Amber Kinney, an attorney who formerly prosecuted crimes of sexual violence, cited public-health research and prevalence statistics and told the committee that delayed disclosure is the common, not the exceptional, pattern. "There is no right or wrong timeline," Kinney said. "It should never be subject to arbitrary timelines."

Several survivors and advocates described personal and systemic barriers to prompt reporting. Charlotte Wilson, who testified she was abused by a family doctor, said she did not recognize the abuse until a medical board action made the doctor's conduct public. "Statutes of limitations in sexual-assault cases serve to protect the abuser, not the abused," Wilson said.

Supporters noted a national trend: witnesses told the committee that 19 states and the federal government have eliminated civil time limits for some sexual-abuse claims, and other states have opened look-back windows to revive expired claims. Disability Rights Oregon and advocacy organizations also testified in support, citing elevated risk and repeated victimization among people with disabilities.

Opponents were not prominent in the public testimony the committee heard; witnesses focused on legal mechanics, clinical research on trauma, and survivor accounts. Attorneys in the room answered several technical questions from members about parental-liability claims and whether the bill creates new causes of action. "The statutes being amended include a provision saying nothing in this section creates a new cause of action or expands an existing one," Erin Olson told the committee.

The committee did not take a vote on HB 3582 during the May 14 meeting. The proposal remains in the Rules Committee for further consideration, including technical questions about retroactivity and legal standards.

If enacted as written, HB 3582 would change how Oregon's civil courts treat delayed disclosure of sexual abuse and could allow more survivors to seek damages in civil court on timelines driven by individual healing rather than by statutory deadlines.