Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court held that the time-of-discovery rule tolled the two-year statute of limitations for a personal injury claim arising from a pedicure because the plaintiff did not know or have reason to know of her injury until a rash appeared several days after the treatment. The court concluded that the limitations period began on the date the injury was discovered, rather than the date of the alleged tortious conduct. The judgment dismissing the action was reversed and the matter was remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Delaware's time-of-discovery rule tolls the two-year statute of limitations for a personal-injury claim when the injury does not manifest until several days after the allegedly tortious conduct.
- Whether Morton's complaint, filed on September 17, 2004, was timely when the limitations period was calculated from the September 20, 2002 discovery or manifestation of injury date rather than the September 15, 2002 date of the pedicure.
Holdings
- Under Delaware's time-of-discovery rule, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she has been injured. When an injury does not manifest until several days after the wrongful act, the two-year limitations period runs from the date of discovery or manifestation of the injury rather than the date of the wrongful act.
- Morton's action was not barred on the facts presented because the statute of limitations was tolled for the five days between the pedicure and the appearance of the rash, giving her until September 20, 2004 to file suit.
Key quotations
“Under the time of discovery rule, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until a party knows or has reason to know that he/she has been injured.” (481)
“While it is true that the time of discovery rule is equitable in nature, our case law establishes that the only two requirements for application of that rule are an "inherently unknowable" injury and a "blamelessly ignorant" plaintiff.” (482)
Factual background
On September 15, 2002, Donna Morton received a pedicure at Sky Nails and soaked her feet in a tub of water. Five days later, she developed large pustular spots on her legs and ankles, and on September 23 learned that she had spa/pool folliculitis, a condition commonly caused by soaking in an unsanitary tub or spa. Morton filed suit on September 17, 2004.
Procedural history
Morton received a pedicure at Sky Nails on September 15, 2002, developed a rash on September 20, and learned on September 23 that she had spa/pool folliculitis. She filed suit on September 17, 2004, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence. The Superior Court granted Sky Nails' motion to dismiss, concluding that the claims were time-barred and that the time-of-discovery rule did not toll the limitations period during the five days before the rash appeared. The Supreme Court of Delaware reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded to the Superior Court for further action in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court did not retain jurisdiction.