Hoffman v. Rockey

9 Citing cases

  1. Peterson v. Mult. Co. Sch. Dist. No. 1

    668 P.2d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 24 times
    Acknowledging defendant's argument that the discovery rule did not apply because the only thing plaintiff failed to discover within the limitations period was a legal theory but rejecting the argument because of court's conclusion that facts, not legal theories, were undiscoverable

    Here, there is no issue whether the discovery rule is applicable, see n 4, infra, or whether plaintiff did discover his cause of action against OSAA less than two years before bringing it. The only issue is whether he should have discovered the existence of his claim at an earlier time, or, more correctly, whether there was evidence to support the jury's finding that he should not. In Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or. App. 658, 639 P.2d 1284, rev den 292 Or. 722 (1982), we set out the following test: "A plaintiff should discover that he has a cause of action when he realizes (1) that he has been injured, (2) that the injury can be attributed to an act of the alleged tortfeasor, and (3) that the act of the alleged tortfeasor was somehow negligent.

  2. Bussineau v. President Dir. of Georgetown

    518 A.2d 423 (D.C. 1986)   Cited 108 times
    Equating accrual of a cause of action for statute of limitation purposes with occurrence of "injury" and requiring that the injury be discoverable with reasonable diligence

    In Oregon, the appellate court likewise concluded that a "plaintiff should discover that he has a cause of action when he realizes (1) that he has been injured; (2) that the injury can be attributed to an act of the alleged tortfeasor, and (3) that the act of the alleged tortfeasor was somehow negligent." Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or. App. 658, 663, 639 P.2d 1284, 1286 (1982). The Oregon court rationalized such a construction of the discovery rule by noting:

  3. Fidler v. Eastman Kodak Co.

    714 F.2d 192 (1st Cir. 1983)   Cited 97 times
    Finding that knowledge of injury does not require knowledge that defendant's breached a duty to cause the injury

    A number of courts have, however, adopted discovery rules under which a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers or in the exercise of due diligence should discover, in addition to his injury and its cause, that the injury has resulted from some negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the defendant, some actionable wrong. See Dawson v. Eli Lilly and Co., supra (applying D.C. Law); Goodman v. Mead Johnson Co., 534 F.2d 566, 575 (3d Cir. 1976) (applying New Jersey law); Anderson v. Shook, 333 N.W.2d 708 (N.D. 1983); Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or.App. 658, 639 P.2d 1284, 1286 (1982); Jacoby v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 1 Haw.App. 519, 622 P.2d 613 (1981); Foil v. Ballinger, 601 P.2d 144, 147 (Utah 1979); Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, 117 N.H. 739, 378 A.2d 1138 (1977); Owens v. Brochner, 172 Colo. 525, 474 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1970).

  4. Doe v. American Red Cross

    322 Or. 502 (Or. 1996)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that, without any evidence as to what Doe would have discovered if he had inquired, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on its statute of limitations defense

    " (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.) In the trial court, plaintiff relied on the formulation of those elements found in Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or. App. 658, 639 P.2d 1284 (1982). The third prong of the test in that case was described as "the act of the alleged tortfeasor was negligent."

  5. Anthony v. Abbott Laboratories

    490 A.2d 43 (R.I. 1985)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Anthony, the court referred to its "conscious balancing of policies" to prevent "the unexpected enforcement of stale claims with the opportunity of a person to have her day in court to vindicate those rights that have been violated but have remained undiscovered or undiscoverable."

    " Id. at 1338. See, e.g., Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 378 A.2d 1138 (1977); Lynch v. Rubacky, 85 N.J. 65, 424 A.2d 1169 (1981); Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or.App. 658, 639 P.2d 1284, reh'g. denied, 292 Or. 722, 644 P.2d 1131 (1982); Foil v. Ballinger, 601 P.2d 144 (Utah 1979); Ohler v. Tacoma General Hospital, 92 Wn.2d 507, 598 P.2d 1358 (1979). We are convinced, after reviewing the case law and weighing the equitable considerations, that the better view would be to adopt the following rule: in a drug product-liability action where the manifestation of an injury, the cause of that injury, and the person's knowledge of the wrongdoing by the manufacturer occur at different points in time, the running of the statute of limitations would begin when the person discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the wrongful conduct of the manufacturer.

  6. Anderson v. Shook

    333 N.W.2d 708 (N.D. 1983)   Cited 17 times
    Discussing the difficulties in defending a stale claim with the passage of time and describing the statute of limitations as a product of necessity

    An Oregon appellate court similarly concluded that a "plaintiff should discover that he has a cause of action when he realizes (1) that he has been injured, (2) that the injury can be attributed to an act of the alleged tortfeasor, and (3) that the act of the alleged tortfeasor was somehow negligent." Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or. App. 658, 663, 639 P.2d 1284, 1286 (1982). See Dawson, supra, 543 F. Supp. at 1334-36 for further discussion of jurisdictions which adopt this view.

  7. Keller v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

    197 Or. App. 450 (Or. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    In that respect, this case is similar to those malpractice and products liability cases in which courts have held that statutes of limitation did not begin to run where plaintiffs received reassurances from defendants that prevented plaintiffs from having sufficient certainty about the existence of facts pertaining to the elements of the statutes of limitation. See Gaston, 318 Or at 260-61; Forest Grove Brick v. Strickland, 277 Or 81, 559 P2d 502 (1977); Hoeck, 149 Or App at 613-14; Penuel v. Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc., 127 Or App 195, 200-01, 872 P2d 28, rev den, 319 Or 150 (1994); Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or App 658, 662-63, 639 P2d 1284, rev den, 292 Or 722 (1982). In those cases, a manufacturer's assurance that a product could be fixed or a doctor's assurance that an untoward effect was normal and not the result of negligence presented each plaintiff with several alternative explanations for the injury, only one of which supported the plaintiff's tort claim.

  8. Krasnow v. Allen

    29 Mass. App. Ct. 562 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the discovery rule did not delay accrual where the plaintiff merely lacked knowledge of the identity of a particular defendant

    In that respect, the discovery rule may be somewhat more narrow in Massachusetts than in many other States where a cause of action accrues only when a plaintiff has notice of all the elements of a cause of action. See, e.g., Anderson v. Shook, 333 N.W.2d 708, 712 (N.D. 1983); Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or. App. 658, 663 (1982); Jacoby v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., 1 Haw. App. 519, 525 (1981). Our courts have not had occasion to rule on the more general question, related to the precise issue in the present case, whether application of the discovery rule delays accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff knows or should know the identity of the particular defendant claimed to be responsible for the harm.

  9. Guiley v. Hammaker

    55 Or. App. 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 11 times
    In Guiley v. Hammaker, 55 Or. App. 921, 927, 640 P.2d 664, rev den 292 Or. 863 (1982), a 14-day-old child, who was involved in an automobile accident, suffered what appeared at that time to be only a minor abrasion.

    " 48 Or. App. 934 -935. To those cases can be added Colvin v. FMC Corporation, 43 Or. App. 709, 604 P.2d 157 (1979) (a strict liability action based on us of an insecticide); Adams v. OSP, 289 Or. 233, 611 P.2d 1153 (1979) (Tort Claims Act); Melgard v. Hanna, 45 Or. App. 133, 607 P.2d 795 (1980) (legal malpractice); and Hoffman v. Rockey, 55 Or. App. 658, 639 P.2d 1284 (1982) (medical malpractice). Of all the cases referred to, Schiele is the one most closely resembling the present case.