Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.
*859 *631 When a child is allegedly harmed by in utero exposure to hazardous chemicals, which statute of limitations applies: that for toxic exposure claims ( Code Civ. Proc., § 340.8, subd. (a) ), 1 or that for prenatal injuries (§ 340.4)? The answer determines the viability of this lawsuit. Because the toxic exposure statute was more recently enacted, and its language plainly encompasses prenatal injuries, we conclude it applies here. The limitations period for toxic exposure suits is two years, but it is tolled while the plaintiff is a minor. (See § 352; Nguyen v. Western Digital Corp. (2014) 229…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- People v. HarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)California Supreme Court · 2000
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Jackpot Harvesting Co. v. Superior Court of Monterey Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human ResourcesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- People v. LopezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
- Global Fin. Distribs. v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Cnty. of San Diego Dep't of Child Support Servs. v. C.P., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.