Opinion ID: 1808951
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Encouraging Plaintiffs to Pursue Claims Diligently

Text: Plaintiffs in asbestos cases typically were exposed to asbestos long before they suffered any measurable harm from the exposure. [4] Therefore, [i]f a worker files suit on the day he commences or terminates employment which involves breathing asbestos dust, he may as yet have no signs of developing asbestosis. Such a suit would be readily dismissed since there has been no injury, and thus no cause of action shall have accrued. It would be unreasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's suit because there was no injury and then not allow him to bring the suit years later when asbestosis develops on the ground that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. [ Strickland v Johns-Manville Int'l Corp, 461 F Supp 215, 217 (SD Tex, 1978).] See also Harig v Johns-Manville Products Corp, 284 Md 70, 80-81; 394 A2d 299 (1978) (it cannot be said that the tort victim can be charged with slumbering on his rights, for there was no notice of the existence of a cause of action). Since there is obviously no interest in encouraging plaintiffs who are unable to determine they have been injured to diligently pursue their claims, we find that adoption of the discovery rule would not interfere with this policy.