Norgart v. Upjohn Co.
981 P.2d 79, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453, 21 Cal. 4th 383 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for the elements of a cause of action, even if the plaintiff does not know the identity of the specific defendant or the legal theory of liability.
Facts:
- In April 1984, Kristi Norgart McBride attempted suicide and began psychiatric treatment for depression.
- In May 1985, Kristi's general practitioner, Dr. Gary Greensweig, prescribed her the hypnotic drug Halcion for insomnia, and prescribed it again in August, September, and October of 1985.
- On October 16, 1985, Kristi committed suicide by an intentional overdose of prescription drugs; empty bottles of Halcion and another drug, Darvocet-N, were found near her body.
- Immediately following Kristi's death, her father, Leo Norgart, began an investigation because he believed some external force or action must have caused her suicide.
- Prior to mid-1986, Leo Norgart formed a belief that Kristi's husband, Steven McBride, and her psychiatrist, Dr. Donald Apostle, had done something wrong to cause her death.
- At all relevant times, the package insert for Halcion warned that caution should be exercised when prescribing it to patients with symptoms of depression and that suicidal tendencies may be present in such patients.
Procedural Posture:
- Leo and Phyllis Norgart filed a complaint for wrongful death against The Upjohn Company in the Superior Court of Sonoma County, a state trial court.
- Upjohn moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, which the trial court denied.
- After the Norgarts and Upjohn stipulated to entry of judgment in Upjohn's favor to facilitate an appeal on the statute of limitations issue, the trial court granted summary judgment for Upjohn.
- The Norgarts, as appellants, appealed to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, an intermediate appellate court, with Upjohn as the appellee.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, finding the action was not time-barred.
- The Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court, granted Upjohn's petition 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 toll the statute of limitations for a wrongful death claim until the plaintiffs suspect the specific defendant's wrongdoing, even when they had already formed a suspicion that their decedent's death was caused by the wrongdoing of others?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
No. The discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations until a plaintiff suspects a specific defendant's wrongdoing if they already suspect that the injury was caused by wrongdoing from any source. The statute of limitations for the Norgarts' wrongful death claim began to run prior to mid-1986, when Leo Norgart suspected that his daughter's death was caused by the wrongdoing of her husband and her psychiatrist. A plaintiff's suspicion of wrongdoing by 'someone' is sufficient to trigger a duty to investigate and to start the running of the limitations period. The identity of the defendant is not an element of a cause of action, and failure to discover a particular defendant's identity does not postpone the accrual of the claim. Once the Norgarts suspected wrongdoing, they could have filed a timely 'Doe' complaint against the known suspected parties and then used the statutory three-year period to conduct discovery and identify other potential defendants like Upjohn.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennard, J.
This opinion does not answer the substantive issue but argues the case should not be decided on the merits. The author contends that the Norgarts' appeal should be barred by the doctrine of invited error because they stipulated to the trial court's entry of summary judgment against them solely to create an appealable final judgment after the court had issued a tentative ruling in their favor. By stipulating to the adverse ruling, the Norgarts manufactured appellate jurisdiction, which subverts the legislative scheme that makes denials of summary judgment non-appealable as of right. Therefore, the author would reverse the Court of Appeal's decision without reaching the merits of the statute of limitations defense.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle in California that the discovery rule's 'suspicion' standard is a broad one, focusing on the injury and a general sense of wrongdoing rather than knowledge of a specific defendant's culpability. The decision places a significant burden on plaintiffs to act diligently and investigate all potential causes of an injury once they have a reason to suspect any form of wrongdoing. It reinforces the importance of using procedural tools like 'Doe' complaints to preserve claims against unknown defendants, effectively preventing plaintiffs from waiting until every party's role is clear before the statute of limitations begins to run.
