Opinion ID: 2369292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The facts concerning the injury's discovery are disputed. Therefore, the question is one for the trier of fact.

Text: ¶ 30 On summary judgment all inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the record are to be considered in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. [45] Even when the basic facts are undisputed, motions for summary judgment should be denied, if, under the evidentiary materials, reasonable individuals could reach different factual conclusions. [46] For a summary judgment movant to prevail in negating the discovery rule, it must demonstrate conclusively that no genuine fact issue exists about the time the non-movant discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the tort. [47] ¶ 31 The central question in deciding whether the statute of limitations has expired for Woods' claims is when he knew or should have known that he suffered injury. The publishers initially released approximately eleven thousand (11,000) books, but only seventy-seven (77) were destined for Oklahoma consumers. Even if Woods had some duty to randomly search publications for the misappropriation of his photograph, it is doubtful he would have been able to find the publishers' book as he was not given credit or identified in the publication. ¶ 32 Where the period of limitations starts when the claimant knew, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence would have discovered the act which gives rise to the claim, the beginning of the running of the statute of limitations is usually to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the particular case; and, where these are such that reasonable men might reach conflicting opinions thereon, the issue is a question for determination by the trier of fact. [48] Fact questions exist as to whether Woods was diligent discovering the misappropriation of his photograph, precluding summary judgment. Although the facts surrounding the publication and distribution and the injury's discovery are not seriously disputed, the trier of fact must still determine when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury. [49]