 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodenburg v. Lathrop12/12/2001
the person or reputation, including injuries to relative rights, whether based on contract or tort. . . within two years. Iowa Code ยง 614.1.
The Rodenbergs assert this two year statute of limitations did not begin to run on March 26, 1996, the date of the injury for which they seek redress. Instead, they claim the statute should be tolled until August 4, 1998. They contend this is the earliest date on which they could have discovered they had a cause of action against Mark Lathrop. If the statue was tolled until August 4, 1998, as the Rodenbergs contend, then the Iowa negligence action filed on August 3, 2000 would fall within the two-year statute of limitations even though it was filed more that four years after Clifton Rodenburg was injured.
To the extent that the Rodenburgs attempt to establish a factual and legal basis for being excused from timely filing, they must shoulder the burden of proving such an exception. See Frazen v. Deere & Co., 334 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Iowa 1983).
Application of the Discovery Rule
The Rodenbergs initially claim the district court erred in failing to recognize that the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions under Iowa Code section 614.1(2) is subject to the discovery rule. The common law discovery rule provides the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, both the facts of the injury and the nexus between the injury and the alleged negligence. Borchard v. Anderson, 542 N.W.2d 247, 250 (Iowa 1996). While fairness to the plaintiff provides justification for the discovery rule, we have held that fairness to a defendant must temper the application of this rule. Woodroffe v. Hasenclever, 540 N.W.2d 45, 49 (Iowa 1995) (quoting LeBeau v. Dimig, 446 N.W.2d 800, 802-03 (Iowa 1989)). The law favors the application of one statute of limitations for actions based on a particular incident. LeBeau v. Dimig, 446 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Iowa 1989).
Courts have been reluctant to adopt a broad application of the discovery rule for fear that creating "rolling statute of limitations" would effectively obliterate the intended protection of legislatively established time limits. While recognizing the wisdom of its application under certain circumstances such as professional malpractice, workers compensation, and injuries resulting from sexual abuse, courts have been quick to point out that these are exceptions to the general rule. See Bochard, 542 N.W.2d at 251.
Even if we assume, for purposes of the Rodenbergs' appeal, that the discovery rule could be used to toll the statute of limitations in a general personal injury action, their claim would nonetheless be time barred. The statute of limitations begins to run when an action "accrues," that is when all of the elements are known, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been known to the plaintiff. See Frazen 377 N.W.2d at 662.
We recognize that situations may arise when a person suffers an injury, but is oblivious to significant facts surrounding the event. The array of potentially responsible parties may be open to question until certain facts are revealed. The time period for discovering new pertinent facts is quite possibly limitless. This situation has been resolved by tolling the statute of limitations based on the discovery rule until the time when a plaintiff may reasonably be charged with knowledge of facts sufficient to trigger awareness of a cause of action against a particular defendant. Vachon v. State, 514 N.W.2d 442, 446 (Iowa 1994). Knowledge is imputed to a claimant when he gains information sufficient to alert a reasonable person of the need t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|