Opinion ID: 222047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Open Courts Provision

Text: Appellant maintains that denying Gazal the opportunity to pursue his claim violated a provision of the Texas Constitution stating that [a]ll courts shall be open and that every person shall have a remedy by due course of law. Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. According to appellant, the provision is intended to invalidate statutes of limitation that cut off a person's right to sue before the person has a reasonable opportunity to discover the wrong and bring suit. See Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S.W.2d 918, 923 (Tex.1984). We conclude that the open courts provision does not operate to save Gazal's claim, for the doctrine is designed to protect a plaintiff who has yet to discover or become aware of his putative injury. See Martz v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 965 S.W.2d 584, 589 (Tex.App.1998) (The `open courts' provision operates to toll the statute of limitations in situations in which it is impossible to discover the injury and timely file suit during the limitations period.). Gazal knew that he had been injured, and whatever difficulty he faced in proving his theory cannot negate this fact.