Bayless v. Philadelphia Nat. League Club, 77-2042

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Citation579 F.2d 37
Docket NumberNo. 77-2042,77-2042
PartiesPatrick B. BAYLESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL LEAGUE CLUB a/k/a the Philadelphia Phillies, the Vet Stadium, Defendant-Appellee. . Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
Decision Date26 April 1978

Page 37

579 F.2d 37
Patrick B. BAYLESS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL LEAGUE CLUB a/k/a the Philadelphia
Phillies, the Vet Stadium, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 77-2042.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) April 26, 1978.
Decided June 5, 1978.

Page 38

John I. McMahon, King of Prussia, Pa., for plaintiff-appellant.

Gerald A. Dennehey, Charles W. Craven, Marshall, Dennehey & Warner, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant-appellee; Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, ALDISERT, Circuit Judge, and STERN, * District Judge.

OPINION

STERN, District Judge.

This diversity action presents the question whether the Pennsylvania two-year statute of limitations bars an action by one who did not discover the cause of his injury within the two-year period. Because there exist genuine issues of material fact as to when the limitations period began to run, we reverse the summary judgment granted the defendant.

The facts, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are as follows. Upon his graduation from high school in 1966, Patrick Bayless was hired as a baseball pitcher by the defendant Philadelphia National League Club, popularly known as the Philadelphia Phillies. In May of 1971, while playing on a Phillies' minor league team, Bayless began to experience severe pain in the lumbar-sacral area of his back and in his right leg. He complained to the team trainer and physician who treated him by administering massive doses of the pain-killing drugs, Decadron, Xylocaine, and Butazolidin. He claims to have been compelled to pitch while in a drug-induced stuporous condition. Bayless's pitching performance deteriorated. On August 12, 1971, the Phillies gave him his unconditional release.

Within thirty days, Bayless collapsed; an emergency laminectomy was performed. Nonetheless, he continued to suffer pain in his back. In September of 1971, Bayless began to exhibit erratic behavior and to suffer from severe depression. He was thereafter confined in state mental institutions on numerous occasions and has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. He alleges that this condition was triggered by the drugs he was administered. He seeks damages from the Phillies for injuries associated with his back condition and for the mental illness he has suffered.

Page 39

On October 15, 1976, more than five years after ingesting the drugs but, or so he claims, less than two years from the time that he discovered that it was the drugs that caused his mental illness, he filed this action. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the action was barred by the Pennsylvania statute of limitations and by Pennsylvania workmen's compensation law.

The district court ruled that Bayless's claims arising out of his back condition and those involving his mental illness were both governed by Pennsylvania's two-year limitations period for personal injuries, but it treated the two claims separately. It held that the cause of action based upon the back injuries arose no later than September 12, 1971, the date on which Bayless underwent the emergency laminectomy. It was then that Bayless knew of his back injury, and the district court held this was more than two years prior to filing the present suit. Thus, the court held that this claim was time-barred. Bayless does not challenge this aspect of the trial court's ruling on appeal.

With respect to the claim for mental illness, the trial court ruled that the limitations period began to run "when plaintiff knew or reasonably should have discovered the extent of his mental illness." The court ruled that this occurred no later than January 23, 1973, the date on which Bayless was discharged from Napa State Hospital diagnosed, according to hospital records, as a paranoid schizophrenic. In other words, the court held that the limitations period began to run when Bayless learned that he suffered from a mental illness. Accordingly, the court held that this claim was barred as well. It did not consider the alternative ground raised by the defendant on its motion for summary judgment, that plaintiff's claims were barred by the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act. We therefore do not reach this here.

The Pennsylvania statute of limitations for personal injuries, Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 34 (Purdon) reads, in relevant part:

Every suit hereafter brought to recover damages for injury wrongfully done to the person, in case where the injury does not result in death, must be brought within two years from the time when the injury was done and not afterwards; . . .

Our task is to decide when the limitations period commences to run. The court below held that it runs from the moment that the injury is known to the plaintiff, in this case, from the moment he knew of his mental illness. We hold that the rule in Pennsylvania is that the limitations period...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • February 13, 1981
    ...62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979); Yazzie v. Olney, Levy, Kaplan & Tenner, 593 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1979); Bayless v. Philadelphia National League Club, 579 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1978); Roman v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 970 (5th Cir. 1975); Greenberg v. McCabe, 453 F.Supp. 765 (E.D.Pa.1978), aff'd, 59......
  • Moll v. Abbott Laboratories, Docket Nos. 93309
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 21, 1993
    ...until a plaintiff knows he has been injured and can reasonably determine what or who hurt him. Bayless v. Philadelphia Nat'l League Club, 579 F.2d 37 (CA3, 1978). As in Bayless, Moll involves the question of someone's wrongdoing, not in the sense of a known breach of a legal duty, but wheth......
  • Neal v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., Civ. A. No. 78-4242.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • August 31, 1982
    ...428, 436 (1980) (quoting Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. 290 (Phila.C.P.1980)). See Bayless v. Philadelphia National League Club, 579 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir. This so-called "discovery rule" has been applied in asbestos cases. Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. 290 (Phila.C. P.1980......
  • Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 2052
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 2, 1980
    ...advances caused her mental deterioration. A factual question was thus posed. Similarly, in Bayless v. Philadelphia National League Club, 579 F.2d 37 (3rd Cir. 1978), summary judgment for defendant was reversed where plaintiff claimed justifiable ignorance of the casual connection between hi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • Moll v. Abbott Laboratories, Docket Nos. 93309
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 21, 1993
    ...... Bayless v. Philadelphia Nat'l League Club, 579 F.2d 37 ......
  • Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • February 13, 1981
    ......1979); Bayless v. Philadelphia National League Club, 579 F.2d 37 ......
  • Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp.
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 2, 1980
    ......2052 Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania May 2, 1980 . . ... . . Similarly,. in Bayless v. Philadelphia National League Club, 579. F.2d ... Security Trust Co. v. Black River Nat. Bank, 187. U.S. 211 (1902); Albright v. R.J. ......
  • Neal v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., Civ. A. No. 78-4242.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • August 31, 1982
    ...81, 425 A.2d 428, 436 (1980) (quoting Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. 290 (Phila.C.P.1980)). See Bayless v. Philadelphia National League Club, 579 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir. 1978). This so-called "discovery rule" has been applied in asbestos cases. Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT