JAMES CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC. AND LOWE'S-COMPANIES, INC., 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.
James Carter appealed the dismissal of his negligence complaint based on the statute of limitations, arguing that the delayed discovery doctrine should apply to extend the filing deadline. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the delayed discovery doctrine does not apply when the plaintiff could readily discover both the negligent act and the resulting injury.
The delayed discovery doctrine does not apply because nothing prevented Carter from readily discovering both that he slipped and fell and that he might have been injured as a result. The cause of action accrued on the date of the accident, February 23, 2002, making the complaint filed on March 2, 2006, barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
[1] A cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the tortious act giving rise to the cause of action, unless the plaintiff could not readil…
[2] The delayed discovery doctrine is not applicable in slip and fall cases where the plaintiff is aware of the event causing the potential injury.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[t]he 'delayed discovery' doctrine generally provides that a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff either knows or reasonably should know of the tortious act giving rise to the cause of action.”
Establishes the general rule for when the delayed discovery doctrine applies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter alleged he slipped and fell on wet plant material at a Lowe's store on February 23, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sought medical assistance on …
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 Delayed Discovery Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Carter appeals a final order dismissing his complaint with prejudice based upon the statute of limitations, section 95.11(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2002). Carter’s complaint alleged that, on February 23, 2002, he sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on wet plant material on the premises of a home improvement store owned and operated by Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., and Lowe’s-Companies, Inc., appellees. Carter’s complaint was filed on March 2, 2006, more than four years after the date of the alleged accident. Carter argues that, because he did not know the extent of his injuries until he sought medical assistance on March 1, 2002, the common law delayed discovery doctrine applies and, as a result, his cause of action did not accrue . until March 1, 2002. We agree with the trial court that the delayed discovery doctrine is not applicable here.
As the Florida Supreme Court explained in Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 1179, 1184 (Fla.2000), “[t]he ‘delayed discovery’ doctrine generally provides that a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff either knows or reasonably should know of the tortious act giving rise to the cause of action.” (Citations omitted). In the vast majority of cases, the cause of action accrues when the event giving rise to the damage occurs. Id. at 1185, n. 3. The delayed discovery doctrine was reserved to those cases where the plaintiff cannot readily discover the injury done to him. Id. In this case, nothing prevented Carter from discovering that he slipped and fell and that he might have been injured as a result thereof. See also Cristiani v. City of Sarasota, 65 So. 2d 878 (Fla.1953)(statute of limitations generally runs from the notice of the negligent act rather than notice of its consequences).
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2000)
- Cristiani v. City of Sarasota, 65 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1953)