§42.4 Discovery Rule
The Basic Facts: Plaintiff gave birth to a child out of wedlock and filed a petition with the juvenile court to name an individual the father. A blood test was then conducted by Defendants, which excluded the individual named in the petition from being the father. A second test was then taken approximately one year later, which established that the first test was incorrect, and the individual named in the petition was the father. Plaintiff subsequently brought suit, alleging negligence in conducting the blood test.
The Bottom Line:
- "The parties recognize that the one-year statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have discovered, the existence of a legal cause of action. Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512, 517 (Tenn. 1974) (adopting 'discovery rule'); see Hoffman v. Hospital Affiliates, Inc., 652 S.W.2d 341, 342-43 (Tenn. 1983) (following Teeters). This so-called 'discovery rule' prevents the anomaly of requiring that a plaintiff file suit 'prior to knowledge of his injury or . . . that he sue to vindicate a non-existent wrong, at a time when injury is unknown and unknowable.' Teeters, 518 S.W.2d at 515. As we have explained:
[A] cause of action in tort does not accrue until a judicial remedy is available. A judicial remedy is available when (1) a breach of a legally recognized duty owed to plaintiff by defendant (2) causes plaintiff legally cognizable damage. A breach of a legally cognizable duty occurs when plaintiff discovers or 'reasonably should have discovered, (1) the occasion, the manner and means by which a breach of duty occurred that produced . . . injury; and (2) the identity of the defendant who breached the duty.'Wyatt v. A-Best, Co. , 910 S.W.2d 851, 855 (Tenn. 1995) (citations omitted)." 979 S.W.2d at 586.
- "[W]e conclude that the statute of limitations did not begin to run on the day the plaintiff learned of the first blood test. Although the plaintiff contends that the statute did not commence until her actual discovery that the first blood test was erroneous, i.e., when the juvenile court determined the second test was correct on October 11, 1995, we agree with the Court of Appeals' determination that the plaintiff should reasonably have discovered the existence of this cause of action on June 6, 1995, the date she learned the results of the second blood test that there was a 99.5 percent probability that Hayner was the father. In either case, the outcome is the same because the suit was filed on April 2, 1996, which was within one year of either date." Id. at 587.
Other Sources of Note: Gunter v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 121 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2003) (holding that the three year statute of limitations pertaining to actions for injuries to personal property applied to a negligence claim against testing laboratory when the laboratory negligently conducted a paternity test and overstated the probability of paternity); Green v. Sachs, 56 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (jury issue present on issue of whether plaintiff filed suit within one year of discovery; excellent discussion of the law).
Mills v. Booth, 344 S.W.3d 922 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (affirming summary judgment based on statute of limitations in auto wreck case finding that discovery rule did not toll statute of limitations where crash report was amended within a week of the wreck); Lufkin v. Conner, 338 S.W.3d 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (affirming dismissal of legal malpractice claim based on statute of limitations finding plaintiff was aware of facts giving rise to claim more than two years before filing suit); Dutton v. Farmers Group, Inc., No. E2009-00746-COA- R3-CV, 2010 WL 2516865 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 22, 2010) (reversing dismissal of complaint for personal injuries due to toxic mold exposure noting plaintiffs filed affidavit stating they were unaware of the cause of their illnesses until a doctor told them less than one year before filing suit that their living environment could be a possible cause); Leonard v. Leo’s Exterminating Services, Inc., No. E2009- 01398-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 2134145 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2010) (holding discovery rule did not apply to toll statute of limitations where plaintiff was aware of facts supporting TCPA claim more than one year before filing suit).
Young v. Enerpac , 299 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (affirming summary judgment on basis of statute of limitations finding discovery rule did not apply in case where plaintiff was disoriented because of his injuries and did not know or understand his injuries for several days after accident); Hanna v. Sheflin, No. M2007-01158-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 2840575 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2008) (upholding dismissal of conversion claim by plaintiff against her parents for settlement funds she entrusted to her father as time-barred finding the statute of limitations was not tolled due to fraudulent concealment because daughter failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence in discovering her father's alleged conversion of the funds); Grindstaff v. Bowman, No. E2007-00135-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 2219274 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2008) (holding that Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 only applies when a defendant alleges fault of a nonparty in an answer or amended answer and not in a separate letter to plaintiff's counsel that is not part of a pleading); Hensley v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. E2007-00323-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 683755 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2008) (affirming trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff on statute of limitations defense finding there was no evidence that plaintiff had notice sufficient to trigger running of statute of limitations); Liggett v. Brentwood Builders, LLC, No. M2007-00444-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 836115 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2008) (upholding grant of summary judgment based on expiration of statute of limitations); Brandt v. McCord, No. M2007-00312-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 820533 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2008) (upholding dismissal based on statute of limitations and finding fraudulent concealment did not apply to toll statute of limitations); Luna v. St. Thomas Hospital, 2007 WL 4322019, M2006-01728-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2007) (reversing summary judgment finding genuine issue of material fact as to when plaintiff should have discovered cause of action against the defendant); McMahan v. Sevier County, No. E2005-02028-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1946650 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 3, 2007) (holding that defendants failed to establish absence of genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered his injury more than one year before filing suit).