Personal injuries and statute of limitations

Lau2976

I’m not looking for legal advice as this question is purely hypothetical after a conversation with a friend.

If you injured yourself, but didn’t know the extent of that injury until after that initial date when does the 2 year clock start?

He said still from the date of the accident but could you successfully argue that it’s from the date you found out the injury was serious.

Like if you fell and had bruising but thought that was the end of it but then found out that you’d actually damaged bone when would the clock start? Or if you broke something and didn’t find out that it would leave major permenant damage until 8+ weeks after the accident when the cast was removed.

Peregrinus

It runs from the time the cause of action accrues, which in this case is when you knew or could have known, with reasonable diligence, that you had been injured through somebody's negligence.

It makes no difference whether you fully appreciated the scale of the injury, or the consequences that would flow from it. Even if you thought your cause of action was of modest value initially, you knew or ought to have known that you had a cause of action, and that's what starts the clock running.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

It makes no difference whether you fully appreciated the scale of the injury, or the consequences that would flow from it. Even if you thought your cause of action was of modest value initially, you knew or ought to have known that you had a cause of action, and that's what starts the clock running.

Would this contrast with a case where you were unknowingly being poisoned at work? The two years would only start running from when you had a reasonable suspicion something was wrong?

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Would this contrast with a case where you were unknowingly being poisoned at work? The two years would only start running from when you had a reasonable suspicion something was wrong?

I think it would only start running from the point where you not only knew (or should with reasonable enquiry have known) that something was (medically) wrong but also knew (OSWRIHK) that it was attributable to poisoning as well as knew (OSWRIHK) that the defendant was responsible for poisoning you.

Pat Mustard

Lau2976 wrote: »

He said still from the date of the accident but could you successfully argue that it’s from the date you found out the injury was serious.

Like if you fell and had bruising but thought that was the end of it but then found out that you’d actually damaged bone when would the clock start? Or if you broke something and didn’t find out that it would leave major permenant damage until 8+ weeks after the accident when the cast was removed.

See the date of knowledge test for personal injuries per S.2 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/18/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

Lau2976

That’s where we disagreed Pat Mustard

[](b) that the injury in question was significant

My argument was that bruising, as in my first example, isn’t “significant” but damage to the bone is.

BattleCorp

What would be the situation if the injured person was categorised as having learning difficulties?

Could it be argued that, due to their learning difficulties, that they hadn't the capability to acquire the necessary knowledge as defined in S.2(2) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991, so therefore the 2 year statute wouldn't apply in such a case?

Pat Mustard

BattleCorp wrote: »

What would be the situation if the injured person was categorised as having learning difficulties?

Could it be argued that, due to their learning difficulties, that they hadn't the capability to acquire the necessary knowledge as defined in S.2(2) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991, so therefore the 2 year statute wouldn't apply in such a case?

Depending on all of the circumstances, to include the severity of the learning difficulty, there could be an argument that such a person was under a disability for the purposes of s.5 of the 1991 Act (as amended).

Pat Mustard

Lau2976 wrote: »

That’s where we disagreed Pat Mustard

[](b) that the injury in question was significant

My argument was that bruising, as in my first example, isn’t “significant” but damage to the bone is.

There are entire books which have been written on the statute of limitations, which discuss caselaw, injuries and the circumstances in which people became aware of their injury or became aware that the injury was serious.

Claw Hammer

The date of knowledge is the date when a person got or should have got medical advice about the injury. Army deafness cases are a good example. Some did not realise their hearing was deteriorating. t was held that the date of knowledge was the date they should have got their hearing investigated. I