Legal Opinion

Afatasi v. Ho Ching

High Court of American Samoa

Decided December 13, 1990No. CA No. 106-89Published

1Opinion of the Court

Five years ago defendant intentionally shot plaintiff, inflicting serious injuries. As a result of these injuries plaintiff is paralyzed from the waist down, evidently for life, and has suffered a variety of ancillary disabilities and illnesses.

In December 1989, over four years after the shooting, plaintiff brought this action for damages. Defendant argues that the action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations for actions founded on injuries to the person. See A.S.C.A. § 43.0120(2).

Plaintiff agrees that this is the applicable statute of limitations, but contends that as a result of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Adkins v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Pearl v. PearlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Kyle v. Green Acres at Verona, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
  4. Claim of Hurd v. County of AlleganyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
  5. Graboi v. KibelDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977

6 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