The following section from Day on Torts Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law​​​ is out of date and should not be used. It remains a part of this site for historical purposes only. An updated version of the book is available by subscription at (Additional information below.)

§42.5 Discovery Rule in Defamation Cases

The Case: Leedom v. Bell , No. 03A01-9704-CV-00136, 1997 WL 671918 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 1997).

The Basic Facts: The plaintiff and his wife sued a psychologist and his ex-wife for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct, and violation of the plaintiff's constitutional right to his familial relationship with his daughter alleging that the defendants issues false accusations that the plaintiff had sexually abused his daughter. The libel claim was based on a letter sent to the Knox County Department of Human Services, which contained negative statements about the plaintiff's character. "Dr. Bell argues that since the letter was sent on February 12, 1993 and the plaintiffs filed suit on February 15, 1994, their libel action is barred by the one year statute of limitations found at T.C.A. § 28-3-104." 1997 WL 671918 at *6. The plaintiff argues that he did not discover the existence or contents of the letter until at least February 22, 1993 and therefore his action is not time-barred on the basis of the "discovery rule."

The Bottom Line:

  • "The precise issue of whether the discovery rule should be adopted in matters involving libelous documents, which unlike books or magazine articles, are not accessible to the general public, has not been addressed in Tennessee. In Quality Auto Parts Co., Inc. v. Bluff City Buick Co., Inc., 876 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn. 1994), the Supreme Court declined to apply the discovery rule in slander cases. The Quality Auto Parts court carefully limited its holding to slander actions, noting that 'historically, … a distinction has been drawn between the two types of defamation.' Id. at 820. Additionally, the language of the libel limitations statute, which provides that an action must be brought 'within one (1) year after [the] cause of action accrued,' [Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104], is significantly different from the more specific slander limitations statute, which mandates the bringing of an action 'within six (6) months after the words are uttered.' [Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-103]." 1997 WL 671918 at *6.
  • "The Supreme Court has stated that 'the public policy of our state is opposed to requiring that suit be filed when circumstances totally beyond the control of the injured party make it impossible for him to bring suit.' Teeters, 518 S.W.2d at 517. This policy is grounded upon a recognition of the unfairness of 'requiring that [a plaintiff] sue to vindicate a non-existent wrong, at a time when the injury is unknown and unknowable.' Id. at 515. In deciding whether to apply the discovery rule to cases such as the one at bar, we must weigh these considerations against the policy reasons underlying the development of statutes of limitations, described by the Quality Auto Parts court as:
    To ensure fairness to the defendant by preventing undue delay in bringing suits on claims, and by preserving evidence so that facts are not obscured by the lapse of time or the defective memory or death of a witness.
    Quality Auto Parts , 876 S.W.2d at 820." Id. at *6-*7.
  • "There is a decided modern trend in American jurisprudence to apply the discovery rule in those limited situations where the allegedly libelous statement occurred in private or confidential publications which are not readily available to the plaintiff or the general public. Those states which have directly addressed this issue have generally adopted the discovery rule in such cases." Id. at *7 (citations omitted).
  • "After careful consideration of the facts and equities of the present case, and the various policies underlying statutes of limitations and the discovery rule, we find ourselves in agreement with the following statement by the Mississippi Supreme Court on this issue:
    We are convinced that the general policies underlying this statute of limitations will not be thwarted by adoption of the discovery rule in that limited class of libel cases which, because of the secretive or inherently undiscoverable nature of the publication the plaintiff did not know, or with reasonable diligence could not have discovered, that he had been defamed. In such rare instances, we do not believe that a plaintiff can be accused of sleeping on his rights.
    Staheli , 548 S.W.2d at 1303." Id.
  • "In the present case, Leedom could not have discovered the existence of the allegedly libelous letter until the juvenile court hearing on February 22, 1993. By operation of the discovery rule, his cause of action for libel accrued on that date. Since Leedom filed his complaint less than one year after accrual, his claim is not time-barred." Id.

Other Sources of Note: Quality Auto Parts Co., Inc. v. Bluff City Buick Co., Inc. , 876 S.W.2d 818, 821-822 (holding that the discovery rule does not apply to toll the statute of limitations for slander).

Recent Cases: Daniel v. Taylor , No. E2008-01248-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 774428 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2009) (affirming dismissal of slander and false light invasion of privacy claims finding statute of limitations expired and discovery rule did not apply).

After an accident, many injury victims and their families want more information on the accident and their legal rights. Consequently, many of them have found their way to these pages. While we are happy you are here, please understand Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law was written to be a quick, invaluable reference for Tennessee tort lawyers. While the book provides the leading case for more than 300 tort law subjects and thousands of related case citations, it is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Rather than researching these legal issues alone, we urge you to contact one of our award-winning lawyers who can sit down with you, review your case, answer your questions and clearly explain your rights and your options in a no-cost, no-obligation consultation. Our experienced attorneys handle all personal injury and wrongful death cases on a contingency basis, so we only get paid if we win. If for any reason you are unable to come to our office, we will gladly come to you.

To schedule an appointment, contact us online or call us at 615-742-4880 or toll-free at 866.812.8787.

The foregoing is an excerpt from Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law, published by John A. Day, Civil Trial Specialist, Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, recipient of Best Lawyers in America recognition, Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated attorney, and Top 100 Tennessee Mid-South Super Lawyers designee. Read John’s full bio here.

The book is now available electronically by subscription at The new format allows us to keep the book current as new opinions are released. BirdDog Law also has John's Tennessee Law of Civil Trial and Compendium of Tennessee Tort Reform Statutes available by subscription, as well as multiple free resources to help Tennessee lawyers serve their clients

Client Reviews
Everything was great. You guys are a great representative. I was satisfied with everything. Truly appreciate John Day and his hard-working staff. Jamar Gibson
We thought that you did an excellent job in representing us in our lawsuit. We would recommend you to anyone. Mitch Deese
The Law Offices of John Day, P.C. is, without a doubt, the best in Nashville! They treated me with the utmost respect and tended to my every need. No question went unanswered. I was always kept informed of every step in the process. I received phenomenal results; I couldn't ask for more. I would definitely hire The Law Offices of John Day, P.C. again. Anthony Santiago
I would definitely recommend to anyone to hire John Day's law firm because everyone was helpful, made everything clear and got the job done. I am satisfied with how my case was handled. June Keomahavong
It's been a long battle but this firm has been very efficient and has done a remarkable job for me! I highly recommend them to anyone needing legal assistance. Everyone has always been very kind and kept me informed of all actions promptly. Linda Bush
I had a great experience with the Law Offices of John Day. The staff was very accommodating, and my phone calls/emails were always responded to in a timely manner. They made the entire process very easy and stress-free for me, and I had confidence that my case was in good hands. I am very happy with the results, and I highly recommend! Casey Hutchinson