Mills v. Booth
2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 801
Tenn. Ct. App.2010Background
- Nov. 8, 2008, fatal auto accident of James Turlington and Altha Turlington; Booth allegedly caused the collision by speeding.
- Patricia Mills, as daughter of Altha Turlington, filed wrongful-death action on Nov. 10, 2009, against Booth and James Turlington.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing one-year statute of limitations had expired, and discovery rule did not apply.
- Original crash report wrongly listed Altha as driver; amended report on Nov. 12, 2008 named James Turlington as driver.
- Plaintiff argued discovery rule extended the one-year period, based on amended report and later engineering findings.
- Trial court granted Motions to Dismiss in March 2010; held discovery rule inapplicable and that limitations began on Nov. 8, 2008; complaint filed Nov. 10, 2009.
- Court of Appeals treated motions as summary judgments and affirmed dismissal, agreeing discovery rule did not apply and limitations began at injury date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery rule extends the statute of limitations | Mills contends discovery rule applies after amended report (Dec. 12, 2008) | Booth and Tennessee Farmers argue limitations run from accident date; discovery rule not applicable | Discovery rule not applicable; statute began Nov. 8, 2008 |
| When the statute of limitations begins to run | Plaintiff asserts later discovery extends period | Limitation runs from injury date regardless of discovery | Limitation begins at injury date; November 8, 2008; timely filing required within one year from date of accident |
| Whether the court properly treated the motions as summary judgment | Motions to dismiss based on statute of limitations should be treated as summary judgment | Motions appropriate for dismissal when outside pleadings considered | Motions treated as summary judgments; proper standard applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1995) (discovery rule focuses on when plaintiff should know of right of action)
- Enerpack v. Young, 299 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (discovery rule not to be extended for minor, transitional delays)
- Young v. Enerpac, 299 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (discovery rule not to be used to tack on brief delays; on inquiry notice at injury date)
- Woods v. Sherwin-Williams, 666 S.W.2d 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983) (origin of discovery rule; shield plaintiff from latent injuries)
- Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. 1974) (origin of discovery rule in medical malpractice context)
- Potts v. Celotex Corp., 796 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn. 1990) (tolled only during lack of knowledge or inquiry notice)
- Burk v. RHA/Sullivan, Inc., 220 S.W.3d 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (discovery rule limitations; not extended for temporary difficulty)