N.G., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS ADOPTIVE FATHER, M.G., APPELLANTS,
v.
ARVIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled because the plaintiff had access to the courts through a next friend or guardian ad litem.
[1] A cause of action for negligence accrues on the date of the injury or the last possible date on which the abuse could have occurred.
[2] A four-year statute of limitations for negligence actions requires commencement within four years of the accrual date.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's cause of action accrued on August 10, 1984. The plaintiff filed suit after the four-year statute of limitations had expired. The plain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Next Friend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, N.G., appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, Arvida Corporation, David B. Mesoroll, Jr., Arvida Management Co., Country Walk Master Association, Inc., Country Walk Estate Homes Association, Inc., Country Walk Patio Homes Association, Inc., and State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service [collectively referred to as the Defendants] finding that his cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.
The only issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs action is barred by the four-year statute of limitation governing negligence actions. The plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations was tolled because the plaintiff did not have access to the courts to prosecute his claim for damages. The Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the four-year limitations period had already run as of the date of the July 31, 1991, action.
The record reveals that this cause of action accrued on August 10, 1984, the date on which the plaintiffs abuser was actually arrested on charges of sexual child abuse and the last possible date on which the plaintiff could have been abused. Lindabury v. Lindabury, 552 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), appeal dismissed, 560 So. 2d 233 (Fla.1990). This negligence action must have been commenced within four years of the accrual date, or by August 9, 1988. See § 95.11(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983).
Rule 1.210, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1983), allows an infant to bring an action by next friend or by a guardian ad litem. Anyone who was aware of the plaintiffs predicament had the authority to and could assert the plaintiffs legal rights. No one acted on the plaintiffs behalf. Thus, during the relevant time period of August 10, 1984 through August 9, 1988, the plaintiff had access to the courts. Accordingly, the limitations period was not tolled and the trial court correctly determined that the applicable statute of limitations had run on the plaintiffs action.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.H. and L.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 217 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…ary judgment record is clear that the twins suffered injuries from being dropped, malnourished, and bathed in excessively hot water no later than April 11, 2006—the date they were removed from their mother’s custody. See, e.g., N.G. v. Arvida Corp., 630 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that minor’s negligence claim based on sexual abuse accrued on the date the abuser was arrested, which was the last date upon which she could have been abused). The twins assert that additional psychological injurie…
-
S.A.P. v. State, 704 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…second source of conflict of interest between the adoptive parents and the plaintiff. Finally, S.A.P. alleges that she had little or no actual memory of the incident which serves as the basis of this complaint. We distinguish N.G. v. Arvida Corp., 630 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), cited by HRS to support dismissal. In N.G., the cause of action accrued on August 10, 1984, the date on which the plaintiff’s abuser was arrested on charges of sexual child abuse and the last possible date on which the plaintiff…
Authorities Cited
- Lindabury v. Lindabury, 552 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)