Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Company
76 N.J. 284, 386 A.2d 1310, 1978 N.J. LEXIS 185 (1978)
Rule of Law:
The discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations until a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know the material facts of the causal relationship between their injury and a defendant's conduct, not until the plaintiff learns the legal significance of those facts from an attorney.
Facts:
- Charles Burd's employer contracted with New Jersey Telephone Company to lay pipe.
- Burd's job required him to glue together sections of plastic pipe inside a 5-foot deep trench, using a glue produced by a subsidiary of Continental Can Company.
- The glue can contained a warning label stating, "Caution: Avoid inhaling fumes ", which Burd read before using the product.
- In the days leading up to his heart attack, Burd experienced dizziness and lightheadedness while using the glue, symptoms which subsided approximately an hour after he stopped working each day.
- On September 7, 1971, while working in the trench on a hot day, Burd suffered an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack).
- Burd kept the can of glue in his possession from before his heart attack until he provided it to his attorney in May 1974.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Burd filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer in May 1972.
- On May 16, 1974, Burd sued New Jersey Telephone Company and Continental Can Company in a New Jersey state trial court for personal injuries.
- The defendants' motion for dismissal based on the two-year statute of limitations was denied by the trial court.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Burd, awarding him $100,000 in damages.
- The defendants' motion for a new trial was denied.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Burd's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
- Burd (petitioner) was granted certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discovery rule toll the statute of limitations until a plaintiff is advised by an attorney that they have a legal cause of action, or does the statute begin to run when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know the underlying facts connecting their injury to a potential cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Conford, P. J. A. D.
No, the discovery rule does not postpone the running of the statute of limitations until a plaintiff is advised by a lawyer that the known facts constitute a valid legal claim. The statute of limitations imputes knowledge of the law to a claimant once they are aware of the underlying facts. The discovery rule modifies the conventional limitations period only by postponing the accrual of the cause of action until the plaintiff learns, or reasonably should learn, the existence of the state of facts which may equate in law with a cause of action. The trial judge erred in concluding that the limitations period was tolled until Burd learned he had a complex 'products liability' case. Based on the trial judge's finding that Burd 'knew...this material played some part in whatever occurred to him,' which is supported by evidence of Burd's recurring dizziness when using the glue, the court concluded that Burd knew or reasonably should have known of the factual basis for his claim shortly after his heart attack. Therefore, the action, filed more than two years later, is time-barred.
Concurring - Clifford, J.
No, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In addition to the reasons set forth by the majority, the claim is barred on alternative grounds. Even accepting the plaintiff's assertion that the causal connection was not discovered until his counsel received a medical report on October 7, 1972, there were still eleven months remaining before the two-year statutory period (measured from the date of injury) expired. This period constituted a reasonable and ample amount of time to file a complaint, and the plaintiff's failure to do so bars the claim.
Dissenting - Pashman, J.
Yes, the discovery rule should toll the statute of limitations because it was not reasonable to expect the plaintiff to know of the causal link between the glue and his heart attack. The majority incorrectly equates Burd's knowledge that the glue caused temporary dizziness with imputed knowledge that it could cause a myocardial infarction. Given Burd's eighth-grade education, pre-existing health conditions, the heat, and physical exertion, it is unjust to expect him, a layman, to make a complex medical self-diagnosis. The standard for reasonable diligence should be more subjective and consider the plaintiff's circumstances. The cause of action should not have accrued until October 1972, when a medical expert's report provided the first actual notice of the potential causal relationship.
Dissenting - Handler, J.
Yes, the discovery rule should apply, as the majority unfairly bars a legitimate claim by relying on an ambiguous statement from the trial judge and an attenuated chain of inferences. The trial judge's comment that the glue 'played some part' is too vague to constitute a finding that Burd knew of the causal link to his heart attack. The majority's leap from knowledge of dizziness to knowledge of heart attack causation is harsh and not supported by the record, especially for an unsophisticated manual laborer. Furthermore, the majority's new phrasing that plaintiff must know the cause was 'in some way related' to the injury is a regressive loosening of the established 'may have a basis for an actionable claim' standard.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the 'discovery rule' by establishing a clear distinction between a plaintiff's knowledge of facts and knowledge of law. It holds that the statute of limitations begins to run once a plaintiff is aware, or should be aware, of the factual basis for a potential claim—namely, the injury and its causal link to a defendant's product or conduct. The decision prevents the open-ended tolling of the statute until a party secures legal advice, placing a burden on injured parties to be diligent in investigating the cause of their injuries and seeking legal counsel promptly once the factual basis for a claim is reasonably discoverable.
