 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morton v. Nails9/13/2005
rule tolls the applicable statute of limitations in claims based on products liability, accounting malpractice, and corporate fraud. Since Morton's negligence claim is not a medical malpractice claim, it remains subject to the time of discovery rule.
The trial court seemed to rely on the second distinction in deciding not to apply the time of discovery rule. Unlike the plaintiff in Layton, who had no idea that she had been injured until long after the two-year statute of limitations would have expired, Morton knew she had a claim against Sky Nails within a week of the alleged tortious conduct. Since Morton was not "blamelessly ignorant" for two or more years, she could have filed her suit within the time proscribed by ยง8119. Morton offered no excuse for her delay, and the trial court concluded that she was not entitled to the equitable relief of having the statute of limitations tolled.
While it is true that the time of discovery rule is equitable in nature, our case law establishes that the only two requirements for application of that rule are an "inherently unknowable" injury and a "blamelessly ignorant" plaintiff. In Greco v. University of Delaware , for example, the plaintiff began having medical problems in early December 1987, and suffered a grand mal seizure on December 21, 1987. She filed suit on December 20, 1989. This Court applied Layton, despite the fact thatthe plaintiff discovered the negligence at the beginning of the two-year limitations period, and held that the statute of limitations began to run on the date that "the alleged negligence 'first manifests itself and becomes physically ascertainable....'" It is undisputed that Morton satisfied both of Layton's criteria for the five days between her pedicure and the time that a rash developed on her legs and ankles. Thus, the statute of limitations was tolled for five days, and Morton had until September 20, 2004 to file her action.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Superior Court is hereby reversed and this matter is remanded for further action in accordance with this decision. Jurisdiction is not retained.
Page 1 2 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|