Court Opinion

ID: 9573939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:00:45.195113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:46.222935
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Associate Chief Justice:
(concurring)
I concur but write to observe that the application of the discovery rule here is consistent with the application of the discovery rule in a case of alleged medical malpractice, Christiansen v. Rees, 20 Utah 2d 199, 436 P.2d 435 (1968) (broken surgical needle left in body). Since that decision, the legislature has enacted Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-4, shortening the period in which a *873malpractice action may be brought against a health care provider to two years (subject to exceptions) after the patient discovers, or should discover, his injury, but not to exceed four years after the date of the alleged act, omission, neglect, or occurrence. No similar enactment has been made by the legislature with regard to alleged surveyor malpractice such as we are confronted with in the instant case. Thus the discovery rule adopted in Christiansen v. Rees would seem to be applicable here. Our action is also consistent with the application of the discovery rule in a legal malpractice action decided recently by our Court of Appeals, Merkley v. Beaslin, 778 P.2d 16 (Utah Ct.App.1989).
STEWART, J., concurs in the result.