 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings2/7/2005
JUDGES: Concurring: Ronald Cox Dissenting: Ann Schindler
PUBLISHED OPINION - Opinion ordered published September 26, 2005
By the time of his father's death, Randall L. Clare, individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Clifford S. Clare, either knew or should have known of the essential elements of the product liability, negligence, wrongful death, and survivorship claims arising from that death. Because this action was not filed for a period of almost six years, the claims are barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. Summary judgment was appropriate.
FACTS
Clifford S. Clare had a number of jobs during his life. Mainly he had been a truck mechanic, but he also worked as a steel company welding assistant and a home reconstruction worker . In June 1996, he was diagnosed with metastatic mesothelioma. He died of the disease within six months of the diagnosis. Before Clare died, his physician noted in Clare's medical records that Clare worked as a truck mechanic for about 30 years, including brake repair, which likely exposed him to asbestos dust. The physician also noted there was no other significant overt asbestos exposure.
On October 16, 2002, almost six years after Clare's death, Vola I. Clare, as surviving spouse and the prospective personal representative of Clare's estate, filed a complaint against a number of defendants, including Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. Later amendments to the complaint changed the plaintiff to Randall L. Clare as personal representative, and added General Motors Corporation (GMC) as a defendant.
The trial court granted summary judgment to GMC and Saberhagen after it determined that reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion with respect to application of the statute of limitations, despite potential application of the discovery rule.
DECISION
RCW 4.16.080(2) sets a three-year statute of limitations for torts, which includes product liability actions. Generally, accrual of the statute of limitations begins at the time the act or omission causing the tort injury occurs. The complaint includes causes of action for wrongful death and negligence which are also subject to the three-year statute of limitations. Here, accrual of the statute of limitations is governed by the discovery rule.
Randall L. Clare, as personal representative of the Estate of Clifford S. Clare, claims that proper application of the discovery rule should result in a holding that the claims were not time barred. Under Washington's discovery rule, a cause of action does not accrue until a party knows or reasonably should have known the essential elements of the possible cause of action.
However,
The general rule in Washington is that when a plaintiff is placed on notice by some appreciable harm occasioned by another's wrongful conduct, the plaintiff must make further diligent inquiry to ascertain the scope of the actual harm. The plaintiff is charged with what a reasonable inquiry would have discovered. '{O}ne who has notice of facts sufficient to put him upon inquiry is deemed to have notice of all acts which reasonable inquiry would disclose.' Hawkes v. Hoffman, 56 Wash. 120, 126, 105 P. 156 (1909). Thus, the discovery rule requires a plaintiff to use due diligence in discovering the basis for the cause of action.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the facts constituting the claim were not and could not have been discovered by due diligence within the applicable limitations period. Whether a party exercised due diligence is normally a factual issue, which usually precludes granting summary judgment. Howe
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|