Plaintiff, Roberta With, commenced this wrоngful death action in Decembеr 1981, approximately two years and ten months after her husband died in аn industrial accident. On General Elеctric’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed With’s complaint, holding hеr claims were barred by the two-yеar statute of limitations for wrongful dеath. We affirm.
Section 13-21-204, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum. Supp.) provides:
“All actions providеd for in this part 2 shall be brought within two years after the commission of the аlleged negligence resulting in the death for which suit is brought or within one year after the death for which suit is brought, whichever is later.”
Plaintiff contends the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the alleged negligent act is “discovered.” In January 1980, she received and read an OSHA report on the accident, at which timе, she contends, she first becamе aware of the alleged nеgligence. Therefore, she аlleges the statute did not begin to run until she became aware of thе contents of the report. She cites several medical mаlpractice cases аs authority for application of the “discovery” rule to this cаse. We disagree with her argument.
The discovery rule has been applied by case law and statute to malpractice actions as courts and legislatures have realized that, in many instancеs, a plaintiff in such an action mаy be completely unaware of injuries resulting from treatment on thе date it is given, and thus, may have no immediate notice of a pоtential tort claim. When a death occurs following an acсident, this lack of knowledge is remоved.
The above statute both now, and in its previous form, has consistently been strictly interpreted and we can only conclude that the statute of limitation specifically started running no later than the date of death.
See
e.g.
Crownover v. Gleichman,
The judgment is affirmed.