756 F.3d 23
1st Cir.2014Background
- On May 6, 2008 Orlando Alejandro was electrocuted while attempting to clear a downed power line; his wife Sonia Rodríguez learned that day both of his injury and that a power line caused it.
- PREPA owns and operates power lines in Puerto Rico; plaintiffs sued PREPA and its insurer on April 16, 2010.
- Rodríguez testified she consulted an attorney in June 2008 who left the impression she did not have a claim; later she was contacted by another lawyer and joined the April 2010 suit.
- At trial the district court submitted to the jury whether Rodríguez had been reasonably diligent in pursuing her claim; the jury found for plaintiffs and awarded damages.
- PREPA moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 arguing Rodríguez’s claims were time-barred by Puerto Rico’s one-year statute (P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5298); the district court denied the motion and the First Circuit reviews that denial de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodríguez’s claims accrued and the one-year statute began on May 6, 2008 | Rodríguez delayed filing because an attorney told her she did not have a case (so statute should be tolled or jury should decide diligence) | Accrual occurred May 6, 2008 when she knew of the injury and that a power line (owned by PREPA) caused it; suit filed April 16, 2010 was too late | Held: Accrual occurred May 6, 2008; Rodríguez’s claims expired by May 7, 2009 and are time-barred; PREPA entitled to JMOL |
| Whether plaintiff’s reliance on a third-party attorney’s advice tolled the statute | Rodríguez relied on attorney Cruz’s advice that she lacked a cause of action | Only assurances by the tortfeasor (not a third party) can toll the limitations period under Puerto Rico law | Held: Advice from a third-party attorney does not toll the statute; only tortfeasor’s assurances can do so |
| Whether a jury question existed on due diligence / discovery rule (deemed knowledge) | Jury should decide whether Rodríguez exercised due diligence to discover the tortfeasor | Even if she lacked actual knowledge of PREPA, a simple check (e.g., electricity bill) would have revealed PREPA; reasonable diligence would have yielded identity | Held: No triable issue; either actual knowledge existed or, at minimum, deemed knowledge would have arisen with due diligence, so statute ran |
| Whether extrajudicial steps could have tolled prescription | Rodríguez argued circumstances justified delay | Court notes extrajudicial claim or filing interrupts prescription; no such action was taken by Rodríguez | Held: Plaintiff could have tolled by filing or making an extrajudicial claim; she did not, so claim expired |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodríguez-Surís v. Montesinos, 123 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1997) (explains "knowledge" requirement: actual knowledge of injury and identity of author; discusses deemed knowledge and tolling when tortfeasor assures plaintiff)
- Villarini-García v. Hosp. del Maestro, Inc., 8 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 1993) (applies discovery-rule/deemed-knowledge concept to Puerto Rico one-year statute)
- González-Pérez v. Hospital Interamericano de Medicina Avanzada, 355 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (rejects rule that statute begins only when plaintiff is confident of a meritorious case; reiterates injury + identity rule)
- Tokyo Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Pérez & Cía. de P.R., Inc., 142 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (describes requirements for an extrajudicial claim to interrupt prescription)
- Monteagudo v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado, 554 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard of review for Rule 50 JMOL)