Legal Opinion

Falkenrath v. Candela Corporation

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided April 14, 2016No. 20150050-CAPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum Decision

ORME, Judge:

T1 Appellant Annika Falkerirath received severe burns while undergoing a laser hair-removal treatment with a machine manufactured by Candela Corporation and opérated by employees of Elase, Inc. 2 Following her injury, Falkenrath sued Elase for negligence, and then, almost five years after sustaining the injury, she joined Candela as a defendant. Because Falkenrath did not bring her cause of action agamst Candela until after the four-year statute of limitations had run, and because the district court concluded that the equitable discovery rule did not apply, the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Shawn Owens v. William E. Boyd, Warden, Western Illinois Correctional CenterCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
  3. Horton v. Goldminer's DaughterUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Warren v. Provo City Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Hickman v. GroverWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Norton v. HessCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2016
  2. Rocky Mountain Builders Supply Inc. v. MarksCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API