Opinion ID: 420986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: application of ors 30.905 to philpott's claims

Text: 32 Philpott contends that the district court erred in holding that her claims were barred by ORS 30.905. She argues that the discovery doctrine applies to products liability actions and, therefore, she was entitled to file a lawsuit within two years of her discovery that the Dalkon Shield caused her injuries. 33 In Dortch v. A.H. Robins Co., supra, the court recognized that 34 '[t]he legislature wanted to enact a ten-year period of ultimate repose for product liability actions.... [T]his objective was to be accomplished by providing that if an injury occurred within eight years of the date the product was first purchased, the injured party had an additional two-year period following the injury to bring the action.' 35 59 Or.App. at 316, 650 P.2d at 1049-50 (quoting Baird, 47 Or.App. at 570, 572, 615 P.2d 335). Moreover, the court ruled that while the discovery doctrine does apply to products liability actions, it does not operate to extend the eight year statute of limitations. Id. 650 P.2d at 1049. The legal injury (physical injury which the plaintiff knows or as a reasonable person should know was caused by the defendant) must occur within eight years of the date of purchase. Id. 650 P.2d at 1052. The court concluded: 36 If plaintiff does not discover the defendant's causal connection until after the eighth year, no cause of action accrues within eight years and the claim is barred. 37 Id. 650 P.2d at 1052-53. 38 We hold that Philpott's claims were barred by ORS 30.905. Philpott admits that she did not learn of a causal connection between her pelvic disorders and the Dalkon Shield until January, 1981. This was nine years and eight months after she purchased and began using the Dalkon Shield. Thus, under the principles set forth in Dortch, her claims are barred.