by John J. Tollefsen | Oct 16, 2014 | Blog, Civil Litigation OR, Torts OR
Katherine L. Tavtigian-Coburn v All Star Custom Homes, LLC (Or App, October 8, 2014) Decision: 141008-Tavtigian-All-Star-Custom-Homes The implied discovery rule tolls the statute of limitation until the plaintiff knows sufficient facts to bring the action. It is expressed in this manner: The discovery rule is “a rule of interpretation of statutes of limitation that has the effect of tolling the commencement of such [claims] under certain circumstances.” FDIC. v. Smith, 328 Ore. 420, 428, 980 P.2d 141 (1999). Under the discovery rule, the period of limitations is deemed to have commenced from the earlier of two possible events: “(1) the date of the plaintiff’s actual discovery of injury; or (2) the date when a person exercising reasonable care should have discovered the injury, including learning facts that an inquiry would have disclosed.”1Greene v. Legacy Emanuel Hospital, 335 Ore. 115, 123, 60 P.3d 535 (2002) (emphasis in original); see also Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Ore. 270, 278, 265 P.3d 777 (2011) (“The discovery rule applies an objective standard — how a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have acted in the same or a similar situation.”). This quote is from Rice v. Rabb, 354 Ore. 721, 725-726, 320 P.3d 554, 556-557 (Or.2014) The statute of limitations for most Oregon causes of action is controlled by ORS chapter 12. The court focused on the language of ORS 12.010 stating that actions shall be commenced “after the cause of action has accrued.” Accrue in this context means “at the time [a] plaintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge of the tort committed upon her person by [a] defendant.”2Berry v. Branner, 245...
