Blatt v. Eli Lilly and Company, 66 N.Y.2d 50 (1985)
In DES (diethylstilbestrol) cases, the cause of action accrues upon exposure to the substance, not upon the later discovery of injury, adhering to the established precedent that any change to this policy is a matter for the legislature, not the courts.
Summary
This case concerns the statute of limitations for injuries resulting from DES exposure. The plaintiffs argued that their cause of action should accrue upon discovery of the injury, not at the time of exposure. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the cause of action accrues at the time of exposure, citing the principle of stare decisis and maintaining that any departure from this established rule is a matter for the legislature. The dissent argued for a discovery rule, emphasizing the injustice of requiring plaintiffs to sue before they could reasonably know of their injuries.
Facts
The plaintiffs were exposed to DES in utero. Years later, they developed injuries allegedly caused by the DES exposure. They filed suit against the manufacturers of DES, asserting negligence and products liability claims. The defendants argued that the statute of limitations had expired because the cause of action accrued at the time of exposure, which was more than the statutory period before the suits were filed.
Procedural History
The lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on the statute of limitations, holding that the cause of action accrued at the time of exposure. The plaintiffs appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether, in cases involving injuries allegedly caused by DES exposure, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of exposure or upon the discovery of the injury.
Holding
No, because the Court of Appeals adhered to prior decisions holding that the cause of action accrues upon exposure to the harmful substance, and any change to this well-established precedent is a matter for the legislature, not the courts.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied heavily on the principle of stare decisis, stating that it would not depart from its prior holdings in similar cases involving delayed injuries from substances like asbestos and cancer-causing drugs. The court stated, “There is no showing in the record in either case of sufficient legal significance to warrant departure from our prior decisions.” It emphasized that “Any departure from the policies underlying these well-established precedents is a matter for the Legislature and not the courts.”
The dissenting judge argued that the court should abandon the existing rule because it leads to profound unfairness, requiring plaintiffs to bring suit before they could reasonably know of their injuries. The dissent pointed out that “Tort cases, but especially personal injury cases, offer another example where courts will, if necessary, more readily re-examine established precedent to achieve the ends of justice in a more modern context.” The dissent also noted the inherent injustice to victims of DES and other substances with “time-bomb” effects, advocating for a discovery rule or, at the very least, a medical-date-of-injury rule.