Litigation

By: James C. Dalton

Your right to sue, and the legal remedies available to you, depend not only on the particular facts of your case, but also on the legal basis or theory of your claim. As noted in an earlier blog regarding the Discovery Rule, statutes of limitation require that claims be brought within specific time periods, depending on the type of claim. Failure to do so will lead to dismissal of your claim. A claim for breach of contract, for example, must be brought within four years of when the breach occurred, while a claim for personal injuries due to negligence is subject to a shorter, two year limitation period. Determining how to categorize a particular claim is not always a simple matter – is your claim for faulty construction/repair work a contract claim, or, a negligence claim? Or both? The legal category of your claim will also impact the nature and amount of damages recoverable in court.

Courts often address the distinction between contract and tort (negligence) claims in cases involving the performance of contract obligations, applying the Gist of the Action Doctrine, which the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Reardon v. Allegheny College, explained as follows:

The gist of the action doctrine acts to foreclose tort claims: 1) arising solely from the contractual relationship between the parties; 2) when the alleged duties breached were grounded in the contract itself; 3) where any liability stems from the contract; and 4) when the tort claim essentially duplicates the breach of contract claim or where the success of the tort claim is dependent on the success of the breach of contract claim.

Proper analysis of the facts and available legal theories of your case is essential to protecting your rights and maximizing your recovery. Please contact James C. Dalton, Esq. for further information.

By: James C. Dalton

Statutes of limitation require that legal claims be filed in court within a specific time period after the claim arises. A claim for breach of contract, for example, must be brought within four years of when the breach occurred and a claim for personal injuries due to negligence is subject to a shorter, two year period. Determining how to categorize a particular claim (and the resulting limitation period) is not always a simple matter – is your claim for faulty construction/repair work a contract claim, or, a negligence claim? Or both?

Whether a statute of limitation bars a claim also depends on when the claim arose. Does the period for filing a claim for defective window installation, for example, arise when you signed off on the completed work, or, much later when all of your windows begin leaking? The “Discovery Rule” provides that the limitations period does not start running until a plaintiff knows, or reasonably should have known, that they have suffered a loss or injury due to the conduct of another.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently applied the Discovery Rule to reinstate a patient’s medical malpractice claim in the case of Wilson v. El-Daief. The patient filed suit in October 2003, claiming that her radial nerve was negligently severed during wrist surgery in August 2000. Although the suit was filed over three years after the surgery, the court ruled that the two-year statute of limitations did not automatically start running from the date of surgery. The patient did not know that her pain and symptoms following surgery were due to her surgeon’s negligence until approximately thirteen months later so the case was allowed to be presented to the jury, despite the lapse of over three years since the negligent surgery.

The Wilson case demonstrates that measuring the statute of limitations is not always as simple as looking at a calendar and there may be unique circumstances and legal principles which allow a claim to be pursued. Please contact James C. Dalton, Esq. for further information.