Hibbard v. Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca & O'Hern
118 Wash. 2d 737, 1992 Wash. LEXIS 79, 826 P.2d 690 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discovery rule, which tolls a statute of limitations, does not apply to a standard negligence claim where the injury and its direct cause are immediately known, even if the plaintiff later discovers a potential legal theory of liability against a third party.
Facts:
- Larry W. Knox, a probationer who had been treated at Western State Hospital, was released from the facility.
- On December 6, 1977, approximately seven months after his release, Knox murdered Robert G. and Maxine Hibbard and allegedly raped their daughter, Heidi L. Hibbard.
- On December 12, 1977, Puget Sound National Bank was appointed personal representative of the Hibbard estate, and the law firm Gordon Thomas was retained as its attorneys.
- The probate for the Hibbard estate was formally closed on March 4, 1980.
- In the fall of 1983, Heidi L. Hibbard read a newspaper account of this court's decision in Petersen v. State, a case which revealed the State's potential liability for the actions of Larry W. Knox.
- After reading the article, Hibbard consulted an attorney in October 1983 and reopened her parents' estate.
Procedural Posture:
- Heidi L. Hibbard sued Puget Sound National Bank and the law firm Gordon Thomas in Pierce County Superior Court (trial court) for professional negligence in failing to timely sue the State.
- Hibbard later filed an amended complaint, adding the State of Washington as a defendant in the same action.
- The State of Washington filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the 3-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the State from the lawsuit because the discovery rule did not apply.
- The original defendants, the Bank and Gordon Thomas (as appellants), appealed the trial court's dismissal of the State to the Court of Appeals, Division Two. Hibbard (the plaintiff) did not appeal.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the discovery rule did apply and a question of fact remained for a jury.
- The State of Washington (as petitioner) petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for review.
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" apply to toll the 3-year statute of limitations for a personal injury claim against the State where the plaintiff knew of her injury and its immediate physical cause on the day it occurred, but did not discover the State's potential legal culpability until years later?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. The "discovery rule" does not apply to toll the statute of limitations because it is a limited exception reserved for cases where a plaintiff could not have immediately known of their injury or its cause. The general rule is that a cause of action accrues at the time of the injury. Washington courts have applied the discovery rule only in specific circumstances, such as professional malpractice where a fiduciary relationship exists, latent occupational diseases, or when a defendant actively conceals information. In this case, Ms. Hibbard knew of her injuries and their immediate cause—the actions of Larry Knox—on the day they occurred. The discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations until a plaintiff discovers all the legal theories of liability or the full extent of a defendant's culpability. Because none of the recognized exceptions apply, the 3-year statute of limitations began to run on December 6, 1977, and the claim against the State, filed in 1986, is barred.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and constrains the application of the discovery rule in Washington, reinforcing that it is a narrow exception to the general rule of accrual. The court distinguishes between discovering the factual basis of an injury (harm and immediate cause) and discovering a legal theory of liability against a remote party. By refusing to extend the rule to situations where a plaintiff was aware of the factual injury but not a third party's potential fault, the court prevents the indefinite tolling of statutes of limitations and promotes finality. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring stale claims against governmental and other third-party entities long after an injury occurred, emphasizing the need for diligent investigation of all potentially liable parties from the outset.
Unlock the full brief for Hibbard v. Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca & O'Hern