*1 SIMPSON, PLAIN AND JAMES ALONZO W. LAWRENCE TIFFS-RESPONDENTS, BAUER PUBLISHING CORPORATION, LTD., KURT CHRISTO PRINTING BAUER, AND PATSY LANCE BAUER PHER JEFFREY HARTNETT, DEFENDANTS, BONTEMPO, AND JOSEPH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Arguеd 1978 Decided October the cause Mr. Alan J. Karcher for argued appellant. for B. the cause Flynn argued respondents
Mr. James Green, Flynn, attorneys; Harry Williams and (Messrs. counsel). Division is Appellate The judgment Pee Curiam. court reinstated substantially that of trial reversed opinion the reasons expressed dissenting *2 Division, reported Appellate the judge 271, ashman, P I in the reached concurring. concur result the article forms by libelous which majority. allegedly 9, January the in the basis of was plaintiffs’ printed suit Defendant Hartnett 1975 edition of defendant newspaper. 11, 1976. was not action until joined party May as Since a one-year limitations J. S. A. 2A:14-3, libel,” at law for “[e]very time- claims for are plaintiffs’ damages barred. rule” and contend, however,
Plaintiffs the “discovery that the lead this Court doctrine of estoppel” “equitable to hold that as defendant joined Hartnett was timely the action. A оf the facts which plaintiffs review upon law shows that premise these claims and relevant case merit. plaintiffs’ lacking contentions in this are regard I Taxpayers the Rahway former officers are the construction of to prevent an attempt Association. filed with clerk firehouse, city new municipal citizens which Rahway signed purportedly petitions on referendum. On be placed question demanded ran a which story defendant-nеwspaper 1975, 9, January the authen- investigating were officials city indicated Plaintiffs demanded signatures. of those of some ticity the newspaper printed retraction, in response earlier that the stating 1975 edition the Aрril article “a of information received from the product been story administration.” the [city] source commenced a libel action against plaintiffs May On editor, Also its reporter. president, its newspaper, in thе was “John described a defendant as Doe/’ joined as the fictitious name complaint newspaper employee who was the “composer and writer” of the allegedly libelous story.
Through depositions and interrogatories plaintiffs attempted to discover the source behind When January story. defendants refused to moved for name, reveal an order That motion was compelling disclosure. granted.1 On 10, 1976, as February identified sоurce defendants City Administrator Hartnett. Joseph
Plaintiffs proceeded to depose Hartnett on March During course of that deposition, Hartnett stated that he had requested name newspaper keep confidential when he supplied the information which formed the basis of the article. Having acquired data, on May more than 16 months after the *3 allegedly libelous story was printed plaintiffs amended their original complaint tо add Hartnett as a defendant.
II N. J. S. A. 2A :14^3 action at for every law provides libel must be commenced within “1 year next after * * publication of the libel alleged The article here at issue was first for printed and released сirculation general on 9, It was therefore on that date that story was “published” for of purposes of limita statute Holt, Winston, Inc., tions. See Barres v. Rinehart 74 N. J. 461 N. J. (1977), o.b. 141 aff’ing Super. (App. Div. o.b. 1976), aff’ing 131 N. (Law Div. Since Hartnett 1974). was not joined аs defendant until May 1976, plaintiffs’ action is prima time-barred. contend, however, that under facie validity 1The of this light order is not now before this Court. Privilege of Act, the New News Media N. J. S. A. 2A:84A- 21, grave propriety doubts exist as to the of the trial ac court’s granting tion in this motion. N. J. limitations of period the one-year rule discovery until February A. to run 2A:14-3 not begin did n — n name was disclosed. which Hartnett’s the date upon is a that has been rule” doctrine “discovery so-called
The court, jurisdictions, other by this developed ensue were harsh results that would with the deal sometimes moment an alleged of action deemed to accrue causes the rule stated, act Simply provides is committed. that: * * appropriate of will be not in an cause action held case injured party discovers, of until an exercise rea-
to accrue diligence intelligence should discovered that he have sonаble may claim. have a basis for actionable Swyer, [Lopez (1973)] is, action until of does not accrue “plaintiff That cause learn, the state learns, or existence reasonably in law with cause action.” equate may of facts Co., Jersey Telephone Burd New in original). (emphasis Plaintiffs’ upon litiga reliance doctrine tion derives discovery rule setting wholly misplaced. interpretation from this Court’s language (cid:127) — 8. A. 2A:14—2 the statute limitаtions suits. that an action personal injury provides That statute within two after “the damages years must be commenced . . . shall accrued.” to the absence cause Due *4 a legislative of as to the time when any specification precise “accrues,” in of their courts, claim our the exercise judicial function, have the interests developed rule best serves See, g., of e. Farrell v. Votator Div. Chemetron justice. of 62 N. Fernаndi v. Strully, Corp., (1973); 449 (1961). suit, The statute of limitations present however, not in measure the limitations period does terms Instead, “accrual” of cause of action. it provides an action within one of "the brought year publica must tiоn” of the libel. The has therefore fixed alleged Legislature a precise date on which the limitations run. period begins Once the determined, date is there is no need publication for further judicial Hence, the rule intеrpretation. discovery is inapplicable libel actions. See Rosenberg Town of North Bergen, 61 J. 190 rule (1972) (discovery inap plicable where statute of limitations that an provides must be commenced within ten "after the years performance or . . furnishing of . services construction.”).
Even were the rule here discovery applicable, plaintiffs’ position would still lack merit. Case law demonstrates that this rule has been only invoked successfully situations which: (1) plaintiff was unaware had that he suffered in at the jury time the act; defendant committed a wrongful (2) plaintiff was unaware of the causal connection between his injury conduct; and the defendant’s wrongful plaintiff was unaware that occurred. See, e.g., Moran v. Napolitano, 71 J. 133 Fox (1976); v. Passaic General 71 N. Hospital, J. 122 (1976); Lopez Swyer, 62 N. J. 267 Fernandi v. (1973); 35 N. Strully, The has rule never been applied situations such as the where know they possess actionable claims but are ignorant precise identity person responsible their injuries. McGlone v. Cf. Corbi, 59 N. J. 86 (1971).
One reason for this is that non-applicability such a plain- tiff can prevent limitations period running by with R. complying 4:26-4. rule Thаt provides part: (affect- any governed R. than an action 4:4-5 action other ing specific property res), if name is un- or a the defendant’s true process may plaintiff, under issue the defendant known adding apprоpriate name, stating a fictitious it fictitious to be * *' * description identify him. sufficient to running suspend this rule very purpose the actual de- identity of limitations until the statute *5 376 See, e. v. g.,
fendant Farrell Votator Div. discovered. Chemetron N. 62 J. 111 Corp., in- of B. 4:26-4 were aware a “John they complaint against asmuch as did file Doe” on libelous article and writer” “composer allegedly with May 8, By respect to do likewise failing “source”, on their inexcuseably slept rights article’s to their suit complain therefore cannot now be heard that against Hartnett is time-barred.
Ill es- “equitable Plaintiffs also contend that the doctrine limi- from toppel” pleading prevents maintain that action. They аs defense to this tations remain confidential that his name request to newspaper plain- “inequitable” prevented amounted conduct to January tiffs prior from him as defendant joining a de State have held that number limita from the statute of fendant can invoking estopped which has if tions he has engaged the statute’s bar. subject claim to be plaintiff’s caused main, in which: these situations cases involved into a sense .(1) a defendant lulled false plaintiff has amicably will be claim security by representing see, Friedman g., e. settled without the necessity litigation, Co., N. Cream 333 Div. Ice J. Friendly (App. Co., Howard v. and Seashore R.R. West 1975); N. b., Eq. Div. o. Eq. 1928), aff’d (Ch. A. a defendant has failed dis 1929); (E. disclosе, close information a statutory which he had duty and such plaintiff realizing non-disclosure prevented see, claim, e.g., State v. he an actionable possessed Steel United States 355-360 Corp., (1956); Noel Mind Teffeau, Eq. Div. 1934). 446 (Ch. ful, however, doctrine, of the equitable underpinnings *6 the doctrine should agreed our courts generally in case which any also be applicable * * * all of the case of] circumstances [after consideration plaintiff duty dealing [the] [between of honest
conscience and repudiate right deny to defendant] [the defendant] * * * representations consequences [wrongful] *. or conduct of his Groves, [Patrick Eq. (E. 1934)] & A. Verona, Inc., at v. Green Acres Kyle See assertions, facts of case to this Contrary plaintiffs5 doctrine successful invocation no basis for the any Hartnett make false repre did not equitable estoppel. —duty Hor he under plaintiffs. any to wаs sentations Hence, identity. disclose his or otherwise statutory his name confidential can no way remain request labeled “wrongful.55
Indeed, contrary would run counter any conclusion to the the New Hews Media policies underlying to the Act, N. S. A. 2A:84A—21. That Act Privilege * * * judgment Legislature’s news our that an uninhibited reflects society important proper functioning of our is more media ability agencies, than is the of either law enforcement litigants] gain [sourcеs [or civil to confidential criminal access data. and] news Farber, re at 287 [In J., dissenting) (Pashman, cert. Times v. New New Co. York den. - -, Jersey, S. 99 S. Ct. U. L. -] 2d Ed. from disclosure an immunity newsmen It therefore grants “strict in order that the comprehensive55 “both absolute and of a free . . workings press55 . essential to the confidentiality Id. dissenting). (Pashman, not be undermined. in wrongful news source engaged that a holding in the face fly would by confidentiality conduct requesting would ruling rationale. Such of the Act’s underlying from revealing Hartnett persons position deter information and newsworthy prevent press thus out its constitutional role. carrying “inequitable” thus engage did not did Moreover, his actions refusing to disclose his identity. not cаuse to the bar of the plaintiffs’ subject claims to be own hardship by limitations. caused their Doe” negligently complaint against file “John failing the “source” of libelous article prior the allegedly 9, 1976. Indeed, even after оf Hartnett’s learned precise months identity, waited over three be- they unexplainedly fore as a case him defendant. joining equities therefore favor Hartnett. *7 I concur in the conclusion that
Accordingly, majority’s Hence, plaintiffs’ claims are timе-barred. against Hartnett claims those must be dismissed.
Pasi-iman, in the result. concurring Hughes For reversal and remandment —Chief Justice Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford, Justices Sohreiber and Handler —7.
For affirmance —None. AGENCY, PATERSON REDEVELOPMENT A BODY CORPO- POLITIC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, RATE MAX AND SCHULMAN, WIFE, SCHULMAN AND SALLY HIS AND WAMAC, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF JERSEY, NEW DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. Argued January 4, October 1978 Decided