 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan v. Gonzalez2/26/2003
e abuse. Id. at 1185-86. The supreme court recently explained the narrow scope of Hearndon in Davis v. Monahan, 832 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2002):
While we applied the delayed discovery doctrine to causes of action arising out of childhood sexual abuse and repressed memory in Hearndon, we did so only after considering the unique and sinister nature of childhood sexual abuse, as well as the fact that the doctrine is applicable to similar cases where the tortious acts cause the delay in discovery. Id. at 712.
S.A.P. is cut from the same cloth as Hearndon and Heuring. It is not an extension of the law of equitable estoppel, but an application of the law to a special set of circumstances.
Also, to extend equitable estoppel to cases where a plaintiff is unaware of a cause of action is inconsistent with the recent decision in Davis. There, the supreme court held that the delayed discovery doctrine did not apply to the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment brought by a women suffering from senile dementia. The court ruled that the delayed discovery doctrine is a creature of statute:
Aside from the provisions . . . for the delayed accrual of a cause of action in cases of fraud, products liability, professional and medical malpractice, and intentional torts based on abuse, there is no other statutory basis for the delayed discovery rule. Id. at 710.
It does not appear that equitable estoppel was raised by the plaintiff in Davis. Under the pre-S.A.P. approach to equitable estoppel, the defense would not have applied because the defendants' conduct prevented the plaintiff from discovering their wrongdoing. Davis was not a case where the plaintiff recognized a basis for a lawsuit but was persuaded to forego enforcing her right until after the statute of limitations expired. The policy underlying equitable estoppel would certainly justify its application to the fiduciary relationship allegedly abused in Davis. However, S.A.P. should not be read to let in through the back door the causes of action that would not benefit from the delayed discovery doctrine under Davis. It is unlikely that the supreme court narrowed the delayed discovery doctrine in Davis on November 7, 2002, only to have it subsumed by equitable estoppel on November 27, 2002 in S.A.P.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|