Opinion ID: 2556570
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Absurd Result Principle

Text: In this case, Dr. Reddy argues, any claim for contribution is controlled by the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations. Therefore, he submits, the claim had to be filed no later than two years from the date of Ms. Spriggs' last treatment by Harbor Health prior to her death in 1998. According to Dr. Reddy, because the applicable statute of limitations is two years, Harbor Health's claim for contribution had to be filed in Delaware a full year before the underlying tort suit was filed by Ms. Spriggs' estate against Harbor Health in the District of Columbia. The absurd result principle first appeared in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Britain. [25] These early British cases pointed to the general rule that in construing acts of Parliament, the words of the act are to be interpreted strictly, unless absurdity or injustice would result from a strict construction. [26] In 1765, Blackstone commented that [a]s to the effects and consequence [of statutes], the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. [27] Later in the same volume, when describing the principal rules to be used in statutory construction, Blackstone commented that if there arise out of [acts of parliament]... any absurd consequences, manifestly contradictory to common reason, they are, with regard to those collateral consequences, void. [28] The absurd result principle became part of United States Supreme Court jurisprudence as early as 1819, [29] as an element of what was referred to as the golden rule of statutory interpretation. [30] The golden rule was grounded upon ordinary meaning of the words used by the legislature, but provided specific exceptions where absurdity or some similar consequence would result from a strict interpretation of the legislature's words. [31] Delaware courts have long recognized the absurd result principle. In 1934, for example, the Superior Court stated that the letter of the law is to be strictly construed, but not where adherence to the letter would result in absurdity or injustice. [32] This principle became an important part of statutory construction and remains operative in Delaware statutory construction to this day. [33] The United States District Court for the District of Delaware invoked the absurd result principle in rejecting the same interpretation of the Delaware medical malpractice statute being submitted to this Court by Dr. Reddy. In doing so, that court stated: The Medical Center contends that the Delaware courts have strictly construed the statute of limitations for medical malpractice. The Medical Center thus implies that the legislature may have intended the medical malpractice limitations period, which starts to run at the date of injury, to apply to claims for indemnification as well. Such a conclusion makes no sense. In the context of a third-party claim for contribution where the underlying tort claim had a one-year limitations period, the Delaware Superior Court noted the absurd result that would occur if the statute of limitations began to run on the date of injury. [34] Accepting Dr. Reddy's argument in this case would lead to a similarly absurd result. Harbor Health was not served until 2001, under District of Columbia law. Under Delaware law for medical negligence suits, however, the two-year statute of limitations would have already expired. Thus, if Dr. Reddy's argument was accepted, Harbor Health would have been barred from filing its claim for contribution from Dr. Reddy before it was even served with the original complaint for medical negligence by Ms. Spriggs' representative.