Chapter 38: Limitation of Actions
NEW SECTION: FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
1. C.S. v. The Diocese of Nashville, No. M2007-02076-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This case arose from the sexual abuse of a minor by a Catholic priest. The plaintiff, the victim, claimed the defendant, the priest’s employer, knew of and concealed the priest’s propensity to commit sex crimes against adolescent boys. Approximately thirty (30) years after the abuse, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that such actions constituted outrageous conduct and negligence by the defendant leading to the plaintiff’s abuse. The defendant moved for dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the statute of limitations bars such actions brought more than one year after the minor reaches the age of majority. The plaintiff argued the defendant’s fraudulent concealment of plaintiff’s cause of action tolled the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to discover his cause of action against the defendant before the statute of limitations expired. We affirm."
NEW SECTION - DISCOVERY RULE IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES:
1. Lou Ella Sherrill, et al. v. Bob T. Souder, M.D., et al., No. W2008-00741-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This is a medical malpractice case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee doctor finding that, based upon the discovery rule, the one year statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim had expired prior to the filing of the Appellants’ complaint. Finding no error, we affirm.
2. Mark Holliman, et al. v. Frank McGrew, M.D., et al., No. W2008-00907-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This is a wrongful death action brought under a theory of medical malpractice. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs filed their complaint after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. After careful review, we find that Plaintiffs had notice of their claim no later than February 27, 2003, and their lawsuit was not timely filed. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.
NEW SECTION: APPLICABILITY TO COUNTERCLAIMS / CROSS CLAIMS:
1. Robert Daniels and Peggy Daniels v. Michael D. Wray, No. M2008-01781-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
Plaintiff filed this action for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant answered, denying liability, and subsequently filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15 to amend and make claim for personal injuries and property damage as a result of the accident. The Trial Court allowed the amendment as to property damages, but refused to allow defendant to assert the claim for personal injuries on the grounds inter alia that the statute of limitations had run on the personal injury claim prior to the filing of the Motion to Amend. The property damage claim was settled, but the refusal to allow the amendment has been appealed to this Court. We hold that the Trial Court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the amendment.
1. C.S. v. The Diocese of Nashville, No. M2007-02076-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This case arose from the sexual abuse of a minor by a Catholic priest. The plaintiff, the victim, claimed the defendant, the priest’s employer, knew of and concealed the priest’s propensity to commit sex crimes against adolescent boys. Approximately thirty (30) years after the abuse, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that such actions constituted outrageous conduct and negligence by the defendant leading to the plaintiff’s abuse. The defendant moved for dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the statute of limitations bars such actions brought more than one year after the minor reaches the age of majority. The plaintiff argued the defendant’s fraudulent concealment of plaintiff’s cause of action tolled the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to discover his cause of action against the defendant before the statute of limitations expired. We affirm."
NEW SECTION - DISCOVERY RULE IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES:
1. Lou Ella Sherrill, et al. v. Bob T. Souder, M.D., et al., No. W2008-00741-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This is a medical malpractice case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee doctor finding that, based upon the discovery rule, the one year statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim had expired prior to the filing of the Appellants’ complaint. Finding no error, we affirm.
2. Mark Holliman, et al. v. Frank McGrew, M.D., et al., No. W2008-00907-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This is a wrongful death action brought under a theory of medical malpractice. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs filed their complaint after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. After careful review, we find that Plaintiffs had notice of their claim no later than February 27, 2003, and their lawsuit was not timely filed. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.
NEW SECTION: APPLICABILITY TO COUNTERCLAIMS / CROSS CLAIMS:
1. Robert Daniels and Peggy Daniels v. Michael D. Wray, No. M2008-01781-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
Plaintiff filed this action for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant answered, denying liability, and subsequently filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15 to amend and make claim for personal injuries and property damage as a result of the accident. The Trial Court allowed the amendment as to property damages, but refused to allow defendant to assert the claim for personal injuries on the grounds inter alia that the statute of limitations had run on the personal injury claim prior to the filing of the Motion to Amend. The property damage claim was settled, but the refusal to allow the amendment has been appealed to this Court. We hold that the Trial Court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the amendment.