Thomas Paine African Slavery in America (1775)
Name: Danielle Kissi Course: Introduction to Law Professor: April Pitts Date: 10/30/2012 Assignment: Brief a Case page 282 Case Name: Gnazzo v.G.D.
Searle & Co. 973 F 2nd 136 1992 U. S. App. Lexis 19453 United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Facts: In 1974, Gnazzo had an IUD implanted in her uterus as a contraceptive device. In 1975, Gnazzo experience painful cramping which turned out to be Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID). Although she suffered another PID infection later, she continued to use the IUD until December 1977.
In 1989, a fertility specialist told Gnazzo she was infertile because of the PID that resulted from the use of the IUD. Later that year, Gnazzo answered an attorney questionnaire stating that she first suspected the IUD had caused her infertility in 1981 after researching the product over the internet. In 1990, Gnazzo initiated a complaint against Searle; the maker of the IUD. Searle said Gnazzo’s claim was time-barred by a 3 year statute of limitations for product liability actions.
Procedural History: The District court granted summary judgment and found that Gnazzo did not have a case against Searle because of the statute of limitations. Gnazzo Appealed. Issue: Did the statute of limitations begin to run when the defendant first suspected harm had resulted from the product or when her suspicions were validated by a medical specialist? Holding: Yes, according to the Connecticut Law, the statute of limitations (3 years) begins to run when the plaintiff discovers some form of actionable harm.
Subject case matter is remanded to the District court to hear the case and start the procedure to determine the limitation between the parties. Rationale: This case is the second impression of the court. The court has heard a case-matter about the statute of limitation. The District Court by the Connecticut law, apply the state of limitation because Gnazzo the plaintiff knew since 1981 that she suffered from the UID, but she wait until a specialist confirmed her that the IUD caused her an infertility.
However, a statute of limitation is the period during which a plaintiff must bring a lawsuit against a defendant, so if the lawsuit is not files within this period, the plaintiff loses his or her right to sue. So when the plaintiff began to suspect that her inability to conceive might have been caused by the IUD and then researched the product and discovered it was linked to infertility, the Connecticut statue began to run. Her actions and her own statement in her questionnaire show that she could reasonably assume in 1981, that Searle had cause her harm and in the judgment of the district court was affirmed.
She waited too long before starting action against Searle, so according to the Lawsuit the statute of limitation was only three years if the plaintiff started action against Searle during when the Connecticut statue began to run, she could have a chance to sue Searle. The Court states that the plaintiff failed to sue Searle because action against Searle was taking after the period required of statute of limitations of the Connecticut law. According to the Court decision, if any action is taken by the plaintiff when the Connecticut statue began to run, the plaintiff failed to sue and the Court cannot entertain the suit.