Plaintiff Shirl L. Atwood appeals from a summary judgment entered against him in this products liability action, assailing the trial court’s conclusion thаt his action was barred because it was not brought within four years frоm the date of his injury as provided by Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(3).
On October 11, 1984, plaintiff wаs injured when his pistol, manufactured by defendant Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., fell from its holster, struck the running board of his truck, and discharged. He was incаpacitated and hospitalized for approximately two weeks. While his physical injury was immediately apparent, рlaintiff alleges that he had no knowledge of any legal injury until the spring of 1988 when he consulted his attorney on another matter. At that time, his attorney, who had independent knowledge as a gun hobbyist, informed plaintiff that he might have a legal claim against defendant because it had recalled pistols of the type owned by plaintiff due to manufacturing defects. Months later, plaintiff engaged the same attorney to prosecute this action, which was filed on October 13, 1988, four years and two days after plaintiffs injury occurred.
Plaintiff seeks to avoid the four-year statutory bar on the ground that the time period for filing this action should not begin to run until he had knowledge of his legal injury. He relies primarily on medical malрractice cases decided by this court where we havе held that a plaintiff must have knowledge not only that he has suffered an injury but also that the injury may be due to the negligence of the defendant.
Foil v. Ballinger,
While the discovery rule has often bеen applied to give a plaintiff the opportunity to file his action after learning certain critical facts, the discovery rule has no application here. We held in
Brigham Young University v. Paulsen Construction Co.,
Finally, plaintiff contends that the statute should have bеen tolled for the two weeks he spent in the hospital follоwing his injury. Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-36 provides for the tolling of the statute of limitations in certain instances when the potential plaintiff is either under thе age of majority or mentally incompetent and without a lеgal guardian. Clearly, plaintiff does not come within that provisiоn. While plaintiff was prevented from obtaining legal advice or pursuing any action during his hospitalization, nevertheless, he had the balance of the four-year period to bring his action. He learned in the spring of 1988 that he had a potential lawsuit and had a number of months thereafter to file his action; the initial two-week hospitalization at the beginning of the four-year period was inconsequential in affecting his legal rights.
The summary judgment is affirmed.