 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DUDDEN v. GOODMAN11/27/1995
y-client relationship provides a basis for applying the exception considered in Millwright.
In the more recent case of Estate of Montag v. T H Agriculture & Nutrition Co., 509 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa 1993), it is stated:
If a plaintiff is unaware of his injury within the time provided by a statute of limitations, the plaintiff may extend the time for suit under our delayed discovery rule. Under that rule, the statute does not begin to run until the plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that he had a cause of action. Franzen v. Deere & Co., 377 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 1985).
Under our cases, the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff first becomes aware of facts that would prompt a reasonably prudent person to begin seeking information as to the problem and its cause. ". . . . The period begins at the time the person is on inquiry notice." Franzen, 377 N.W.2d at 662.
Montag v. T H Agric. & Nutrition Co., 509 N.W.2d 469, 470 (Iowa 1993) (emphasis added). [543 NW2d Page 629]
Our supreme court, in Baines, quoted with approval the following statement from Wilkinson v. Harrington, 104 R.I. 224, 243 A.2d 745, 753 (1968):
"To require a man to seek a remedy before he knows of his rights, is palpably unjust. Under such circumstances, in order for a patient to secure and protect his legal rights against doctors for malpractice, the patient would be required to submit himself to complete examinations by a series of independent physicians after every operation or treatment he received from the physician of his first choice. The unreasonableness of such a result is self-evident."
Baines, 223 N.W.2d at 203.
Where, as here, there is a continuous attorney-client relationship, it would be palpably unjust and quite unreasonable to require a client of a lawyer to obtain a second opinion on every professional decision the lawyer makes.
V
As was previously stated, the discovery rule is applied in legal malpractice claims. We find the continuous attorney-client relationship in this case requires that an exception to the presumption of knowledge of the law be applied. We form no opinion what the result might be if this continuous relationship did not exist. That factual setting is not before us.
The district court's denial of the motion for summary judgment was proper. We affirm the decision of the district court, and remand the case for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|