|
Directories Int'l Realty US Realty
|
 |
Every State Needs A "Discovery Rule" Stuart Lieberman, Esq., Justice needs to be blind. Not blindly in favor of big business. Unfortunately, so far in Connecticut, justice seems to favor big business. Take for example the case of Greco v. United Technologies Corp. The facts in that case are routine. A man works for a large manufacturer and claims that toxins in and around the work place made him sick. This is regular toxic tort litigation. The problem is that in 1993 a trial court dismissed the lawsuit because it was filed after the statute of limitations ran. And, that is true. But there is a good reason. The plaintiff could not have filed the lawsuit during the limitations period because he did not know that he became sick as a result of the manufacturer's operations until after the statute of limitations expired. Sound unfair. Obviously, it is. But a trial judge strictly applied the statute of limitations and found, basically, that it does not matter. The rules are the rules, and technically this suit was filed out of time. Thank heavens the State Supreme Court is looking at this case. At issue is the question of whether the statute of limitations should be expanded in toxic tort cases. Cases in which disease may not appear for decades following exposure. Some states already have protection for these plaintiffs. In New Jersey, a discovery rule extends the statute of limitations to accommodate some injured persons who could not know they had a legal claim during the limitations period. New York also has a discovery rule, but it is too narrow and does not provide nearly the level of help that fairness dictates. Of course, claim periods cannot be left open forever. But, they cannot be so short so as to rule out people who become sick decades after a toxic exposure. Fairness requires protection for these sick people. Just as it requires protection for Mr. Greco. It's funny. The President talks about tort reform, and wants to take some kind of national measure to limits the rights of those who have been injured. So why doesn't he want to protect plaintiffs from impossible to meet statute of limitations periods in cases such as these? Don't injured persons need protection as well? Good luck to the Connecticut lawyers. You are on the right side of this very important issue. Our courts are ultimately here to provide fairness and justice. What is happening in your State, and in many others that have not yet come to terms with this evolving issue, is objectively unfair. Big companies need protection from over zealous juries and plaintiff's lawyers. And sick plaintiffs suffering from latent illnesses need fairness and justice as well.
The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.
|
