Share This Page

Victim 9 files abuse claim vs. Sandusky, Penn St.

| Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013, 3:54 p.m.

HARRISBURG — A young man who testified last year against Jerry Sandusky is suing the former coach and Penn State for what he says was nearly four years of sexual assaults while he was a child.

The lawsuit by John Doe 4, known as Victim 9 in court records, was filed Thursday in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

It claims he wouldn't have been victimized if university officials had reported Sandusky to police.

A university spokesman declined comment and a message left for a lawyer who's represented Sandusky in other civil litigation wasn't immediately returned.

The lawsuit asserts an assault and battery claim against Sandusky. The university is sued for negligence and recklessness, tortious conduct, misrepresentation and infliction of emotional distress.

Six of 45 counts for which Sandusky was convicted concern Victim 9.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.