Steven Tyler is asking a judge to take the traditional approach in an upcoming childhood sexual assault trial pending against him and hold one phase to determine liability and any compensatory damages, then a second stage if necessary to assess any punitive damages.
The woman alleges the Aerosmith frontman had an illicit relationship with her when she was 16 years old and he was 25. On Wednesday, Tyler’s attorneys filed court papers with Torrance Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Young in advance of a July 22 hearing asking that the first part of the trial deal with liability and any compensatory damages.
If the jury finds Tyler acted with malice, oppression or fraud, a second phase of the trial should be held to assess whether Tyler should pay any punitive damages, according to the musician’s attorneys’ court papers.
Splitting the trial into the two parts, known as bifurcation, will prevent Tyler from being prejudiced by the presentation of any evidence regarding his financial condition or net worth during the liability and compensatory damages phases of trial, Tyler’s lawyers further state in their court papers. Trial is scheduled Aug. 31.
In her suit filed in December 2022, Tyler’s accuser alleges he convinced the plaintiff’s mother to grant him guardianship over her when she was 16 years old, allowing her to live with him and engage in a sexual relationship. She alleges they were together for about three years beginning in 1973.
The plaintiff became pregnant in 1975, causing Tyler to be simultaneously both the father of the plaintiff’s unborn child and her legal guardian, according to the suit, which further states the Catholic plaintiff later relented under Tyler’s pressure and had an abortion.
The plaintiff says she eventually “made a conscious decision to leave and escape the music and drug-addled world seeking to be free from the sexualized culture created by Tyler and the industry” and that she went on to have a family and become active in her faith.
The 78-year-old singer’s attorneys maintain that only one of the plaintiff’s claims have a California connection, while the others are connected to alleged conduct that occurred in Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, where her causes of action would be time-barred.