California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Gailing v. Rose, Klein & Marias, 43 Cal.App.4th 1570, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 (Cal. App. 1996):
The opinion explained why statute of limitations questions in missed statute cases could not be resolved as a pure question of law. "In the 'classic' missed statute situation, in which the attorney negligently fails to file the underlying lawsuit within the applicable statutory period and does nothing further, the plaintiff suffers actual harm at the time the statutory period lapses because, assuming the claim was otherwise viable, the right and/or remedy of recovery on the action has been substantially impaired. [Citations.] Despite uncertainty of amount or difficulty of proof [citation], the fact of harm would not be speculative or inchoate. [Citations.] ... [p] In other circumstances, the actual loss of the underlying remedy may remain contingent, that is, the attorney's negligence may have created only the potential for future harm. [Citations.] Notwithstanding apparent expiration of the statutory period, questions of waiver, estoppel, or even the applicable limitations period may raise factual issues concerning when the attorney's negligence caused definite and certain injury or more than nominal or insubstantial damages. [Citations.]" (Adams v. Paul, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 589-591, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 904 P.2d 1205, fn. omitted.)
As a corollary of these observations, the court concluded, "[I]n these latter situations of contingent or speculative harm, the determination of actual injury does not necessarily depend upon or require some form of final adjudication, as by judgment or settlement. [A]n injury does not disappear or become suspended because a more final adjudication of the result is sought. [Citation.] [Citation.] In addition ... the facts may demonstrate that plaintiff suffered damage when ... compelled to incur and pay [43 Cal.App.4th 1576] attorney's fees and legal costs and expenditures as the result of the malpractice. [Citation.] It would be for the trier of fact to determine when the requisite harm actually did occur as a consequence of the attorney's negligence. [Citation.] Of course, if the facts are undisputed, the trial court can resolve the question as a matter of law in accordance with the general principles governing summary judgment. [Citations.]" (Adams v. Paul, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 591-592, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 594,
Page 385
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.