Legal Opinion

Liddell v. SCA Services of Ohio, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1994No. 93-294PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

The issue presented to us today is whether a rule of discovery can be applied to toll the statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging negligent exposure to toxic chlorine gas, where the plaintiff subsequently develops a cancerous growth allegedly caused by the exposure, and where the cancer could not be, and was not, discovered until after the applicable statute of limitations governing causes of action for bodily injury had expired. In this case we decide that the application of the discovery rule is the appropriate solution.

I

This is an action for bodily injury and as such is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Blannie S. Wilson, Administratrix of the Estate of Henry J. Wilson, Deceased v. Johns-Manville Sales CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
  3. Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health FoundationOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Browning v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Melnyk v. Cleveland ClinicOhio Supreme Court · 1972

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Collins v. SotkaOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Phyllis Jaskey Jones v. Chemetron CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  3. Harris v. ListonOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Schmitz v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon WirelessOhio Supreme Court · 2007

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API