Opinion ID: 2394603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Continuing harm Theory

Text: This Court and the Court of Special Appeals have recognized the continuing harm or continuo us violation doctrine, which tolls the statute of limitations in cases where there are continuous violations. [7] See Shell Oil, 265 Md. at 636, 291 A.2d at 67; see also Edwards v. Demedis, 118 Md.App. 541, 562, 703 A.2d 240, 250 (1997). Under this theory, violations that are continuing in nature are not barred by the statute of limitations merely because one or more of them occurred earlier in time. See Shell Oil, 265 Md. at 636, 291 A.2d at 67; see also Duke Street Ltd. P'ship v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 112 Md.App. 37, 50, 684 A.2d 40, 47 (1996) (noting that [c]laims that are in the nature of a `continuous tort,' such as nuisance, can extend the period of limitations due to their new occurrences over time). Continuing violations that qualify under this theory are continuing unlawful acts, for exam plea monthly over-charge of rent, not merely the continuing effects of a single earlier act. 78/79 York Assocs. v. Rand, 175 Misc.2d 960, 966, 672 N.Y.S.2d 619, 623 (1998); see also Alston v. Hormel Foods Corp., 273 Neb. 422, 426, 730 N.W.2d 376, 381 (2007) (`continuing tort doctrine' requires that a tortious act-not simply the continuing ill effects of prior tortious acts  fall within the limitation period). Appellant argues that her claims are not barred by the statute of limitations because her claims involve an ongoing harm, in particular, the deteriorating condition of her apartment. We are not persuaded by this argument, as her complaints are merely the continuing ill effects from the original alleged violation, and not a series of acts or course of conduct . . . that would delay the accrual of a cause of action to a later date. Duke Street, 112 Md.App. at 52, 684 A.2d at 48. Furthermore, the jury did not find that the unfair and deceptive trade practices were ongoing violations. With regard to the sole remaining claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices, the jury was instructed as follows: Unfair trade practices are defined as misstatements made directly to a consumer, or by advertisement, or phone solicitation . . . concerning the quality and availability of goods and services or the expertise and affiliation of merchants. The jury then found that appellant knew or should have known of these unfair and deceptive trade practices on October 28, 1998. The jury was not asked to decide whether the unfair and deceptive trade practices were ongoing violations. Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-522(c), [i]f the court fails to submit any issue raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, all parties waive their right to a trial by jury of the issues omitted unless before the jury retires a party demands its submission to the jury. Furthermore, [i]n the absence of a finding by the [trier of fact], the rule requires us to presume a finding consistent with the trial court's judgment. Ver Brycke v. Ver Brycke, 379 Md. 669, 701-02 n. 15, 843 A.2d 758, 777 n. 15 (2004). The jury was not asked to determine whether the unfair and deceptive trade practices were a continuing harm. In other words, the jury was not asked to determine if appellee made any further qualifying misstatements to appellant after October 28, 1998. As a result, we presume that the jury found the violations were not a continuing harm, which is consistent with the trial court's judgment that the continuing harm theory does not apply. Although the damage to appellant's apartment was ongoing, the only misstatements found by the jury were those made at or near the inception of the lease. Because there were no ongoing unlawful acts, this is not the type of continuing harm contemplated by the rule. Even if this case were the type to qualify within the continuing harm theory, the doctrine only tolls the statute of limitations unless the [potential plaintiff] sooner knew or should have known of the injury or harm. Duke Street, 112 Md.App. at 52, 684 A.2d at 48. The jury in this case determined that appellant knew or should have known of the unfair and deceptive trade practices on October 28, 1998. Therefore, we hold, as a matter of law, that the continuing harm theory does not toll the statute of limitations in this case.