 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodenburg v. Lathrop12/12/2001
o investigate. Ranney v. Parawax Co., 582 N.W.2d 152, 155 (Iowa 1998) (citations omitted). As of that date, we have found that a plaintiff is on inquiry notice of all facts that would have been disclosed by a reasonably diligent investigation. Id. (citations omitted).
Challenged to maintain a balance between the competing interests supporting the discovery rule and the statute of limitations, our supreme court has stated:
The underlying purpose of the discovery rule is that a statute of limitations should not bar the remedies of claimants who have been excusably unaware of their rights to sue. Such purpose would be thwarted if we allowed claimants to ignore the statute of limitations when it becomes obvious they have an actionable claim based on one or more theories of action, and then later permit them to sue when additional facts are uncovered supporting additional theories. We therefore hold that once claimants have knowledge of facts supporting an actionable claim they have no more than the applicable period of limitations to discover all the theories of action they may wish to pursue in support of that claim. Sparks v. Metalcraft, Inc., 408 N.W.2d 347, 352 (Iowa 1987) (citations omitted).
In this case, the Rodenburgs' petition alleges one count of negligence against Lathrop. Contained within this single count, are five separate acts the Rodenburgs contend amount to breaches of the duty of reasonable care owed to them by the defendant. The petition alleges breach in that the defendant: (a) secured Hart's release from incarceration; (b) provided the handgun and bullets to Hart; (c) provided transportation for Hart's trips to North Dakota; (d) provided money for Hart's trips to North Dakota; and (e) failed to warn Rodenberg or law enforcement authorities of Hart's intentions and actions. Only one of the five alleged breaches has any connection to information withheld from the Rodenbergs regarding Parker's handgun.
Based on information untainted by Lathrop's misrepresentations about how Hart obtained the gun, the Rodenburgs' negligence action against the defendant became ripe no later than 1997. As the district court noted, the record reveals Clifton Rodenburg began his own investigation of the facts surrounding the shooting as early as March 15, 1997. At that time, Rodenburg initiated conversations with Patrick Parker, Amelia Oponski, and Mark Lathrop. He questioned them about their involvement with Hart, and the shooting.
When he commenced his investigation, Clifton Rodenburg was already aware he had been shot by William Hart, a convicted criminal . His investigation in 1997 revealed there was a relationship between Hart, Lathrop, and Oponski. He confirmed the handgun used in the shooting belonged to Parker and was loaned to Lathrop. He was aware that Parker knew Hart had a history of trouble with law enforcement. Finally, he had knowledge that Lathrop and Oponski bailed Hart out of jail using Oponski's house as collateral. At the least, Rodenburg's knowledge of these facts was sufficient to place him and his wife on inquiry notice for purposes of the discovery rule and the calculation of time for the statute of limitations. We conclude the district court correctly ruled the Rodenburgs' negligence action initiated on August 3, 2000 is time barred.
Personal injury plaintiffs are frequently confronted with a situation in which the statute of limitations period begins to run before the specifics of negligence and the full depth of the injuries are known. Plaintiffs must nonetheless initiate the action within the limitations period, and the problem of acquiring later knowledge is dealt with through procedural mechanisms. Woodroffe, 540 N.W.2d a
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.
|
|