Norgart v. Upjohn Co. - 21 Cal. 4th 383, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453, 981 P.2d 79 (1999)

Rule:

Under the statute of limitations, a plaintiff must bring a cause of action within the limitations period applicable thereto after accrual of the cause of action. The general rule for defining the accrual of a cause of action sets the date as the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements. An exception is the discovery rule, which postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements.

Facts:

In an action by parents against a drug manufacturer for the wrongful death of their daughter, who committed suicide by overdosing on prescription drugs, the trial court granted defendant summary judgment on statute of limitation grounds (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (3)). The summary judgment was based on an agreement between the parties to resolve the proceedings in the trial court, following the trial court's tentative ruling on the summary judgment motion, in order to hasten review in the Court of Appeal, in light of the holding by the Court of Appeal in another case that appeared to be dispositive. That holding provided that, under the discovery rule, a plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, a cause of action as to all defendants when he or she at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements as to any defendant. The Court of Appeal, First Dist., Div. Three, No. A076401, reversed. The Court of Appeal rejected the holding of the prior Court of Appeal case, and instead ruled that under the discovery rule, where there are potentially multiple, unrelated, concurring causes, a plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, a cause of action based on a particular act of wrongdoing by a particular defendant, only when the plaintiff at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, that act of wrongdoing by that defendant.

Issue:

Did the statute of limitations still bar the cause of action of the plaintiffs in this case?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3), plaintiffs, father and administrator, had to bring their cause of action within one year after its accrual. In general, a claim for wrongful death accrued when the cause of action was complete with all of its elements; that is, the date of the death. The court held, even if the discovery rule applied in this case, the statute of limitations still barred the cause of action because it accrued when plaintiffs came to suspect, or had reason to suspect, a factual basis for the elements of wrongful death, which occurred, at the latest, one year after the death. Plaintiffs did not bring the cause of action within one year following the death. Accordingly, the reversal of the grant of summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for consideration of plaintiffs' other claims.