Opinion ID: 1158244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: legislative history of 1987 amendment

Text: The Tort Reform Committee's report to the Legislature specifically addressed the language added to RCW 4.16.350 in 1986 regarding imputation of knowledge to minors. The Committee noted that the language of the 1986 amendment was apparently intended to cut off what has been characterized as `the long tail' of liability for malpractice committed on minors. Report, at 56. Under the 1976 statute, doctors could be sued up to 26 years after an alleged injury. After acknowledging the constitutional questions surrounding imputing knowledge to minors, the Committee stated, However, assuming that the legislative objective is accepted as appropriate, the language of the [1986] amendment fails to achieve that objective in a clear or uncontestable manner. It provides for the imputation of knowledge of the parents to the person under the age of eighteen, but this imputation will not start the running of the statute of limitations. Even before the enactment of the change, actual knowledge of a minor that he or she had been a victim of malpractice did not start the running of the statute of limitations. The statute started to run only when the person reached majority, even if, as a minor, the claimant had knowledge of the malpractice. The elimination of the last provision to former RCW 4.16.350 [by the 1986 amendment] indicates that the section now is to apply to persons under a legal disability, but, as just stated, imputation of knowledge of the parents to a minor does not start the running of the statute any more than actual knowledge by the minor did. (Some italics mine.) Report, at 56-57. Thus, changes in addition to the 1986 amendment were needed in order for the imputation of knowledge to start the running of the statute. The Committee recommended changing the language of the 1986 amendment to make clear that the limitations periods begin to run when the knowledge is imputed. In response to the Committee's recommendation, the Legislature adopted language underscoring the fact that knowledge is imputed during the period of minority and that the imputation starts the statute of limitation running. See Report, at 58. Specifically, the Legislature added the following underlined language: For purposes of this section, notwithstanding RCW 4.16.190, the knowledge of a custodial parent or guardian shall be imputed to a person under the age of eighteen years, and such imputed knowledge shall operate to bar the claim of such minor to the same extent that the claim of an adult would be barred under this section. Any action not commenced in accordance with this section shall be barred. Laws of 1987, ch. 212, § 1401, p. 796. There is not the slightest doubt the Legislature intended to impute the knowledge to the minor at the time the knowledge was acquired by the parent or guardian, not at age 18. The majority's interpretation is exactly opposite to the clear meaning of the 1987 amendment and to the manifest intent of the Legislature.