Washington Appeals Court Expands ‘Continuing Tort Doctrine’ for Domestic Violence Survivors in Landmark Ruling
In a precedent-setting civil decision, the Washington State Court of Appeals has ruled that domestic violence survivors can sue their alleged abusers for an ongoing pattern of abuse without being strictly limited by standard civil statute of limitations deadlines.
In a published opinion filed June 23, the Division II appellate court formally extended the “continuing tort doctrine” to civil claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress involving domestic violence.
The ruling acknowledges that domestic abuse is frequently a sustained pattern of coercive control rather than isolated incidents, fundamentally altering how the state’s courts evaluate the timeframe for victims seeking civil damages.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel reverses a Clark County Superior Court’s partial summary judgment in the civil lawsuit of Sreya Vuth against her ex-husband, Mehran Tavakoli, and remands the case for further proceedings.
Statute of Limitations
At the heart of the appellate court’s ruling is how the justice system measures time limits for victims seeking civil accountability.
In Washington, civil lawsuits for IIED—also known as the tort of outrage—must generally be filed within a three-year window.
Traditionally, any individual incident of abuse occurring more than three years before a lawsuit is filed would be legally expired and barred from a trial.
However, the continuing tort doctrine serves as an equitable exception. It dictates that when a chain of wrongful behavior is continuous, and no single incident can realistically be identified as the sole cause of harm, the statute of limitations clock does not begin to run until the final tortious act occurs.
Under the court’s new ruling, if the last incident of domestic violence falls within the three-year window, the entire history of the ongoing abuse can be evaluated together.
Writing for the appellate court, Judge Linda Lee noted that a strict, literal application of the three-year limit in this case “would result in injustice insofar as Vuth would be unable to present evidence of the magnitude and extent of Tavakoli’s conduct.”
The Case
According to court documents, Vuth, a Cambodian citizen, married Tavakoli in California in July 2019 after arriving in the United States on a fiancée visa.
In her civil complaint, Vuth alleged a severe and ongoing pattern of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse by her then-husband.
The lawsuit claims Tavakoli repeatedly assaulted Vuth, sexually abused her, controlled her access to food, forcibly gave her unprescribed sedatives, and threatened to withdraw her immigration application or harm her family in Cambodia if she reported him to the police.
Because the appellate ruling involved an appeal of a summary judgment, the court noted it is legally required at this stage to view these allegations in the light most favorable to Vuth, assuming her claims to be true for the purpose of the appeal.
The alleged cycle of abuse culminated on June 1, 2020. Court records state that while driving home from a dental appointment, Tavakoli pushed Vuth’s head into the car window after she refused his demand to wash his feet. Vuth escaped the vehicle, and a bystander who witnessed the altercation called the police.
Following his arrest and a settlement offer from prosecutors, Tavakoli pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of third-degree assault domestic violence. A judge finalized the couple’s divorce in November 2023 and issued a lifetime protection order prohibiting him from contacting her.
Vuth filed her civil lawsuit for IIED on May 31, 2023. Citing the three-year statute of limitations, Tavakoli’s legal counsel successfully argued at the trial court level that any allegations of abuse occurring prior to May 31, 2020, were legally expired and constituted separate acts rather than a continuous tort.
The trial court judge agreed, declining to apply the continuing tort doctrine without appellate precedent, and limited Vuth’s claims strictly to incidents that occurred between May 31, 2020, and May 31, 2023.
A Problem of Immense Proportions
In its decision to reverse the lower court, the Court of Appeals recognized that the legal system must adapt to the realities of domestic abuse.
“[E]xtending the continuing tort doctrine to IIED claims involving domestic violence comports both with the general principles behind IIED claims and the continuing tort doctrine, and it would further Washington’s public policy of improving the lives of victims of domestic violence,” Judge Lee wrote.
To support the expansion, the court referenced the Washington Legislature’s definition of “coercive control,” which lawmakers explicitly recognize as “a pattern of behavior” used to cause harm and unreasonably interfere with a person’s free will.
Because the legislature acknowledges domestic violence as an ongoing course of conduct, the court concluded that civil courts should treat it as such for the statute of limitations.
The panel also cited similar legal precedents from courts in Illinois, Idaho, and Texas, which previously determined that isolating incidents of domestic abuse ignores the cumulative trauma that gives rise to emotional distress claims.
Assuming Vuth’s allegations are true, the court noted, it is “glaringly obvious” that Tavakoli exerted coercive control over her.
As a result of the ruling, Vuth will now be permitted to present the entirety of her allegations—dating back to 2019—as her civil lawsuit against her ex-husband proceeds in Clark County Superior Court.