Is there a limitation to when an adult can sue on behalf of a child?

Doom wrote: »

Hi, I'm wondering is there only a set number of years you can go back or can it be up till they're 18yrs old? Thanks

I'm assuming this is a hypothetical please don't post a load of real life stuff later in the thread you'll only earn me a ban / infraction and get your post locked.

When the child hits 18 they aren't a child anymore so I'm assuming your question is how long can a minor sue for? The answer as far as I'm aware (and I am far from a good person to ask) is given in Section 49 of the Statute of Limitations. (This isn't exhaustive and there are other issues.)

49.—(1) (a) If, on the date when any right of action accrued for which a period of limitation is fixed by this Act, the person to whom it accrued was under a disability, the action may, subject to the subsequent provisions of this section, be brought at any time before the expiration of six years from the date when the person ceased to be under a disability or died, whichever event first occurred, notwithstanding that the period of limitation has expired.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not affect any case where the right of action first accrued to some person (not under a disability) through whom the person under a disability claims.

(c) Where a right of action which has accrued to a person under a disability accrues, on the death of that person while still under a disability, to another person under a disability, no further extension of time shall be allowed by reason of the disability of the second person.

(d) None of the following actions—

(i) an action to recover land or money charged on land,

(ii) an action by an incumbrancer claiming sale of land,

(iii) an action in respect of a right in the nature of a lien for money's worth in or over land for a limited period not exceeding life, such as a right of support or a right of residence, not being an exclusive right of residence in or on a specified part of the land,

shall be brought by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection by any person after the expiration of thirty years from the date on which the right of action accrued to that person or to some person through whom he claims.

(e) This section shall not apply to an action to recover a penalty or forfeiture, or a sum by way of penalty or forfeiture, recoverable by virtue of any enactment, except where the action is brought by the party grieved.

(2) (a) In the case of actions for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of a provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to any person—

(i) subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words “six years” there were substituted the words “three years”, and

(ii) this section shall not apply unless the plaintiff proves that the person under the disability was not, at the time when the right of action accrued to him, in the custody of a parent.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, “parent” in relation to a person under a disability means his father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather or stepmother, notwithstanding that the relationship is illegitimate or in consequence of adoption under the Adoption Act, 1952 (No. 25 of 1952).

(3) In the case of actions for damages for slander, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words “six years” there were substituted the words “three years”.

(4) In the case of—

(a) an action to recover an amount recoverable by a tortfeasor under section 4 or 5 of the Tortfeasors Act, 1951 (No. 1 of 1951), or

(b) an action to recover a penalty or forfeiture, or a sum by way of penalty or forfeiture, recoverable by virtue of any enactment where the action is brought by the party grieved,

subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words “six years” there were substituted the words “two years”.

EDIT: Minors are considered to be under a disability by virtue of Section 48.

One other point is that the clock only starts to run once there is knowledge of the injury. So if we come up with some mad scenario where the person didn't know until they were 40 they had been injured then the time would start to run from there. Again it's not as cut and dry as relying on the SoL but should be enough to win a pub argument.

NoQuarter wrote: »

True, depending on the "incident" giving rise to the action. Youd be hard pressed to argue that you crashed in 2011 but didnt discover any injury until 2012. Even if there was none at that time, there is the "ought to have known" principle which has to be balanced with discoverability.

I was trying to remember is there was inputed (?) knowledge. All my 'experience' has been about gingers and scalpels left in people as per Nottingham Trent exams!

NoQuarter wrote: »

Constructive knowledge.

Fecking knew it was one of the two! I have to admit I didn't really do so well in Tort.

I'm a law student so we get very odd scenarios, to make it easier. Constitutional law always seems to have a question on gingers, less controversial than saying blacks or Asians or the French I guess.

The other point was that the clock doesn't run until you know (actual knowledge) or should have known (constructive knowledge) of the damage you have suffered. Say you have an accident and a year later you neck starts to hurt. Three years later you go to a doctor and find its (made-up illness) delayed whiplash. The clock would run from when your neck started to hurt as you should have known to at least get it checked.