About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


27 Santa Clara L. Rev. 657 (1987)
California Personal Injury Statutes of Limitations: The Modern Tort and the Judicial Abandonment of an Archaic Doctrine

handle is hein.journals/saclr27 and id is 675 raw text is: ARTICLES CALIFORNIA PERSONAL INJURY STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS: THE MODERN TORT AND THE JUDICIAL ABANDONMENT OF AN ARCHAIC DOCTRINE Steven J. Andre* I. INTRODUCTION Recently, California courts have disregarded statutes of limita- tions as bars to personal injury suits when a plaintiff's injuries do not appear until many years after the circumstances of injury occur. Other principles regarding the doctrine of limitations of tort actions are also showing signs of eroding in the face of judicial recognition of modern realities. The new view of statutes of limitations can be traced to indus- trial development in the last century. Industrialization had two ma- jor impacts upon the viability of statutes of limitations. First, it cre- ated a new type of tort which does not manifest itself for extended periods and is undeterminable with regard to origination. Second, industrial development has also resulted in the rejection of a concept of social equity which favors social progress over individual loss and the acceptance of an equitable notion of corporate responsibility and risk apportionment for costs of injuries.' However, this article fo- © 1987 by Steven J. Andre * Attorney, Law Office of Anne D. McGowan, Carmel, California; J.D., University of California, Hastings College of Law, 1987; B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 1983. 1. Generally, the process of industrialization has been regarded as contributing to the evolution of tort theory beyond rudimentary notions of direct torts, such as battery, to negli- gence concepts. See M. HORWITZ, THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN LAW, 1780-1860, at 85-99 (1977); E. WHITE, TORT LAW IN AMERICA 3-19 (1981); J. LIEBERMAN, THE Li- TIGIOUS SOCIETY 34-39 (1981); Gregory, Trespass to Negligence to Absolute Liability, 37 VA. L. REV. 359, 365 (1951) (crediting Brown v. Kendall, 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 292 (1850), as the first decision to set forth a consistent theory of liability for recovering damages for unintention- ally caused harm).