Opinion ID: 864275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the substance of the boyleses' response to the

Text: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 3 ¶6. The Boyleses claim that the statute of limitations was tolled by the discovery rule. The discovery rule provides a tolling of the running of a statute of limitations until a plaintiff should have reasonably known of some negligent conduct, even if the plaintiff does not know with absolute certainty that the conduct was legally negligent. Sarris v. Smith, 782 So. 2d 721, 725 (Miss. 2001). Expressed another way, The operative time [for the running of the statute of limitations] is when the [plaintiff] can reasonably be held to have knowledge of the injury itself, the cause of the injury, and the causative relationship between the injury and the conduct of the [defendant]. Smith v. Sanders, 485 So. 2d 1051, 1052 (Miss. 1986) (quoted with approval in Sarris, 782 So. 2d at 723). ¶7. We have specifically applied the discovery rule in a similar case where property was allegedly damaged by radioactive contaminants in oil field waste. Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161, 167 (Miss. 1999). ¶8. The Boyleses allege that they did not know that Schlumberger had performed any work at the site until the deposition of Ora C. Collins, Jr., the principal officer of defendant O. C. Collins Associates, Inc., was taken on February 29, 1996. Therefore, they contend, the discovery rule is applicable to their claims against Schlumberger, and the filing of the amended complaint on October 18, 1996, was timely.