Court Opinion

ID: 9698248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:45:43.138233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.653317
License: Public Domain

Clifford, J.,
concurring. I vote to affirm the judgment below not only for the reasons contained in Judge Conford’s opinion for the Court, in which I join, but also on the alternative grounds elucidated in the dissenting opinions in Fox v. Passaic General Hospital, 71 N. J. 122, 128 (1976), and Moran v. Napolitano, 71 N. J. 133, 142 (1976).
*294As pointed ont by Judge Conford, ante at .(287-288), the accident in question occurred on September 7, 1971, and plaintiff concedes that his counsel was aware of the relationship between the offending glue and his heart attack on October 7, 1972. There remained eleven months during which suit could have been filed before the expiration of two years from the accident date, more than ample time for the expeditious filing of a complaint. See Moran, supra, 71 N. J. at 142. Plaintiff having failed to institute suit in that time, I would hold his claim barred by the statute of limitations even if we were to accept his version of when the aforementioned causal connection was discovered.
Justice Schkeibek joins in this concurring opinion.