Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Supreme Court of California
44 Cal. 3d 1103, 751 P.2d 923, 245 Cal. Rptr. 658 (1988)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should reasonably suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, even if she is not aware of the specific facts necessary to establish the claim or the identity of the particular wrongdoer.

Facts:

Plaintiff Jolly was born in 1951 after her mother ingested the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy.
In 1972, Jolly learned of her exposure to DES and was diagnosed with adenosis, a precancerous condition which she suspected was a result of the DES.
Starting in 1972, Jolly unsuccessfully attempted to identify the specific manufacturer of the DES her mother ingested.
In 1976, Jolly's condition worsened, requiring a surgical procedure.
In 1978, Jolly underwent a complete hysterectomy and partial vaginectomy to remove a malignancy.
By 1978, Jolly was aware of other DES lawsuits and believed that DES had caused her injuries, that it was a defective product, and that she should be compensated for the wrong done to her.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff Jolly filed a personal injury action against defendants Eli Lilly and Company and other DES manufacturers in the trial court.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
The trial court granted defendants' motion and entered judgment in their favor.
Jolly, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment.
Defendants, as petitioners, sought review from the Supreme Court of California, which was granted.

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 statute of limitations for a personal injury claim, under the discovery rule, begin to run when a plaintiff suspects her injury was caused by wrongdoing, even if she is unaware of specific facts establishing the defendant's wrongful conduct or her precise legal remedies?

Opinions:

Majority - Panelli, J.

Yes, the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff has a suspicion of wrongdoing. The discovery rule postpones the accrual of a cause of action only until the plaintiff is aware of her injury and its negligent cause. A plaintiff is held to both her actual knowledge and knowledge that could be reasonably discovered, and the limitations period begins once the plaintiff has notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry. A plaintiff need not be aware of the specific facts necessary to establish the claim, as that is the purpose of pretrial discovery. Jolly admitted that by 1978, she suspected someone had done something wrong to her concerning DES, which was sufficient to start the one-year statutory period. A subsequent change in the law, such as the market-share liability theory established in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, does not revive a claim that is already time-barred. Furthermore, the filing of the Sindell class action did not toll the statute of limitations for Jolly's personal injury claim because the class suit did not provide defendants with adequate notice of the individual, fact-specific personal injury claims that would follow.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the "suspicion of wrongdoing" standard for the discovery rule in California tort law, placing a significant burden on potential plaintiffs to act diligently. It clarifies that the statute of limitations is not tolled while a plaintiff waits for specific evidence of wrongdoing or for a favorable change in legal doctrine. The ruling reinforces the strong public policy of repose for defendants against stale claims and prevents the revival of otherwise barred actions due to subsequent, favorable case law, thereby limiting the retroactive impact of landmark decisions like Sindell. This standard compels plaintiffs to file suit and use the tools of discovery to uncover facts, rather than waiting for a legally or factually perfect case.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature