Olson v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 19 March 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-76,84-76 |
Citation | 696 P.2d 1294 |
Parties | Sandra OLSON, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INC., a Virginia corporation, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Rex O. Arney of Redle, Yonkee & Arney, Sheridan, for appellant.
Michael J. Sullivan and J. Kenneth Barbe of Brown, Drew, Apostolos, Massey & Sullivan, Casper, for appellee; oral argument by J. Kenneth Barbe.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
This is a product liability case seeking recovery for injuries suffered because of breach of implied and express warranties, strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence in the manufacture, sale and distribution of the Dalkon Shield by appellee A.H. Robins Company, Inc. The district court granted summary judgment relying on the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.
Appellant raises two issues:
On June 20, 1973, a Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine contraceptive device (I.U.D.), was inserted into appellant by her physician. In the summer of 1973, appellant became pregnant. She was advised that removal might cause a miscarriage. The Dalkon Shield was, therefore, left in place. During a Christmas trip to Arizona in 1973, appellant started bleeding and having other pregnancy complications. At the emergency room of the University of Arizona Medical Center she was informed of the chance of infection which might prevent further pregnancies. She was told that she would have a better chance of later pregnancies if the present pregnancy were terminated. Appellant acquiesced in that decision, and the pregnancy was terminated during December 1973.
In the summer of 1982, appellant's mother relayed information to her concerning lawsuits being brought against the manufacturer of the Dalkon Shield. During September 1982, she underwent a complete hysterectomy because of ovarian cysts and acute inflammation throughout the uterus. It is not claimed that the medical problems necessitating the hysterectomy were caused by the Dalkon Shield that had been removed nine years earlier. In October 1982, appellant received a newspaper article from her mother concerning litigation against the Dalkon Shield manufacturer. She contacted her attorney and commenced this lawsuit on March 31, 1983.
Appellant admits that a four-year statute of limitations applies to this case; however, she contends that there are two exceptions applicable which toll the running of the statute of limitations, i.e., the discovery rule and equitable estoppel. (Emphasis added and citations omitted.) Duke v. Housen, Wyo., 589 P.2d 334, 340 (1979).
Wyoming is a "discovery" state; therefore, the statute of limitations is triggered when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know the existence of the cause of action. Duke v. Housen, supra; Banner v. Town of Dayton, Wyo., 474 P.2d 300 (1970). The party asserting a right to an exception to the limitations has the burden of proof. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Apodaca, Wyo., 524 P.2d 874 (1974). Ordinarily a negligent act and the resulting injury occur simultaneously. Occasionally the injury will not be sustained or is not known until a later date. The discovery rule provides that:
"A claim does not accrue until the injury is discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should be discovered." Hansen v. A.H. Robins, Inc., 113 Wisc.2d 550, 335 N.W.2d 578, 581 (1983).
When a limitation period starts to run depends upon a balancing of policy considerations
" * * * reflecting the manufacturer's interest in defending a claim before his ability to do so has deteriorated through passage of time, on the one hand, and, on the other, the injured person's interest in not being deprived of his claim before he has had a reasonable chance to assert it * * *." Martin v. Edwards Laboratories, Division of American Hospital Supply Corp., 60 N.Y.2d 417, 469 N.Y.S.2d 923, 457 N.E.2d 1150 (1983). (New York is a date-of-injury jurisdiction rather than discovery.)
There have been several cases addressing the problem of the statute of limitations in Dalkon Shield injury cases. Ballew v. A.H. Robins Co., 688 F.2d 1325 (11th Cir.1982), applied Georgia law in determining whether plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the causal connection between the injury and the alleged negligence of the company. The court, reversing a summary judgment, held that although the evidence might support a finding that appellant should have discovered the relationship between the I.U.D. and her injury, the evidence was also susceptible of showing that appellant did not know that the shield was connected to her injuries. Appellant had specifically asked her physicians if the shield had caused her pelvic infection. Her physician could not say whether or not the infection was causally related to the I.U.D. Three other doctors responded in a similar manner. Therefore, the court held that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether appellant knew or should have discovered the relationship at the time of her first infection or at a later date when she read a newspaper article about injuries caused by the Dalkon Shield.
Other courts have reversed summary judgments where the evidence did not conclusively show that the plaintiff had the necessary knowledge. MacMillen v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 217 Neb. 338, 348 N.W.2d 869 (1984); Newberry v. Tarvin, Tex.Civ.App., 594 S.W.2d 204 (1980). In Nelson v The primary question in the present case is whether appellant knew or should have known the cause of her injury in 1973 after becoming pregnant, having complications and a therapeutic abortion, or whether she did not discover her cause of action until 1982 from information contained in a newspaper. Appellant testified by deposition:
A.H. Robins Co., 515 F.Supp. 623 (N.D.Cal.1981), summary judgment was held improper because it was unclear whether the plaintiff possessed enough facts for her to draw a conclusive relationship between her infection and the I.U.D. In that case the only evidence by which she should have known of an injury was a doctor's statement telling her that the I.U.D. was removed because it was infected and causing her problems. The court held that this statement, by itself, was ambiguous and not sufficient to show that she had the necessary knowledge as a matter of law. However, in Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880 (9th Cir.1983) the court affirmed a summary judgment where the doctor informed the plaintiff that the I.U.D. had perforated her uterus and that plaintiff testified that she knew the perforation was an abnormal event in the course of using an intrauterine device.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCreary v. Weast
...not accrue until the injury is discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should be discovered.' " Olson v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. 696 P.2d 1294, 1297 (Wyo.1985) (quoting Hansen v. A.H. Robins, Inc., 113 Wis.2d 550, 335 N.W.2d 578, 581 (1983)). We have consistently applied the dis......
-
Trentadue v. Buckler Lawn Sprinkler
...487 S.E.2d 901 (1997). Wisconsin: Hansen v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 113 Wis.2d 550, 335 N.W.2d 578 (1983). Wyoming: Olson v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294 (Wyo., 1985). District of Columbia: Burke v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 293 F.Supp. 1328 (D.D.C., 9. 473 Mich. 63, 701 N.W.2d 684 (2005......
-
Richardson Associates v. Lincoln-Devore, Inc.
...of statute of limitations in contractual actions; for example, when fraud or intentional concealment is alleged. Olson v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo.1985). However, this case provides no allegation or evidence by Architect and Mechanical Engineer upon which the district......
-
Cloer v. Sec'y of Health
...505 A.2d 973, 987–88 (1985) (same); Woods v. Sherwin–Williams Co., 666 S.W.2d 77, 78–79 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983) (same); Olson v. A.H. Robins Co., 696 P.2d 1294, 1298–99 (Wyo.1985) (same). 9. The majority makes the strange argument that the failure of the Vaccine Act to tie the limitations period......
-
CHAPTER 14 THE FIRST AND LAST DEFENSES IN PRIVATE ROYALTY LITIGATION: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES
...[237] § 1-3-105(a)(iv)(B) -(C). [238] § 1-3-106. [239] Cabot, 93 P.3d at 243 (citation omitted). [240] Olson v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985). [241] Archuleta v. City of Rawlins, 942 P.2d 404, 406 (Wyo. 1997). [242] Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). ...
-
CHAPTER 13 DISCOVERY AND DOCUMENT PRESERVATION ISSUES PRESENTED BY ROYALTY OWNER LAWSUITS AS AFFECTED BY MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS AND STATUTES OF LIMITATION DECISIONS
...Oil & Gas Corp. v. Followill, 2004 WY 80 (applying Wyoming discovery rule to oil and gas royalties). [109] Olson v. A.H. Robins Co., 696 P.2d 1294 (Wyo. 1985). [110] Mason v. Laramie Rivers Co., 490 P.2d 1062, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 265 (Wyo. 1971); Taylor v. Estate of Taylor, 719 P.2d 234, 1986 W......