Opinion ID: 1808951
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Protection of Defendants

Text: Statutes of limitations are also intended to protect defendants from being forced to defend against fraudulent or stale claims. While adoption of the discovery rule will increase the time during which defendants are vulnerable to suit, we are not persuaded that the longer time period will make it significantly more difficult to defend against asbestos claims. In asbestos cases, [k]ey issues to be litigated ... are the existence of the disease, its proximate cause, and the resultant damage. Evidence relating to these issues tends to develop, rather than disappear, as time passes. [ Wilson v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 221 US App DC 337, 345; 684 F2d 111 (1982).] For this reason, the concern for protecting defendants from time-flawed evidence, fading memories, lost documents, etc. is less significant in these cases. Eagle-Pitcher Industries, Inc v Cox, 481 So 2d 517, 523 (Fla App, 1985). Further, the proof problems arising out of stale claims generally are limited in latent disease cases, because defendants usually maintain detailed records of their business activities, and any remaining proof problems ultimately affect the plaintiff as well as the defendant. [68 Va L R 635.] For these reasons we do not believe defendants will be unduly burdened by the discovery rule in these cases. See also Developments in the law  Statutes of limitations, 63 Harv L R 1177, 1205 (1950). (As between the duly diligent plaintiff and the wrongdoer, the courts have been unnecessarily sympathetic towards the latter, in shortening the period in which it is likely that the plaintiff will bring an action or in entirely depriving the plaintiff of a practical remedy.)