 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holbrook11/9/2000
none of Jerry Holbrook's allegations suggest that either Link-Belt or Isuzu intended to mislead Holbrook so that Holbrook would be lulled into inaction, unable to bring a timely lawsuit. Rather, Holbrook's allegations suggest that Link-Belt and Isuzu attempted repairs simply to remedy the problems with the log loader. Moreover, Holbrook identifies no fallacious representations by Isuzu or Link-Belt. Thus, Holbrook's repair argument fails under equitable estoppel theory.
In short, Holbrook's repair arguments do not revive its untimely warranty claims. We therefore hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on those claims.
III. Timeliness of the Products Liability Claim
A product liability claim must be brought within 'three years from the time the claimant discovered or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered the harm and its cause.' RCW 7.72.060(3). In April or May 1990, when the log loader's cab separated from the chassis, Holbrook correctly surmised that the cause was a defective weld. But he failed to file suit until December 1993.
That Holbrook did not confirm this belief until May 1993 did not toll the running of the three-year limitations period. Holbrook cites no authority to support his proposition that a claimant discovers the cause of the harm only when he or she is 'absolutely certain' of the cause. And we decline Holbrook's implicit invitation to adopt such a rule judicially, because to do so would negate the statute's constructive discovery component, which the Legislature included. See RCW 7.72.060(3).
We hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on Holbrook's WPLA claim.
Affirmed.
Hunt, J.
We concur:
Armstrong, C.J.
Bridgewater, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|