Court Opinion

ID: 9569821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:17:46.360437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:05.017287
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice,
with whom RABINOWITZ, Justice, joins, dissenting.
By holding that the statute of limitations (statute) begins to run upon the'mere notice of an injury or death, the court is either misapplying a settled rule of law or overruling a long line of Alaska cases. Since I believe the settled rule, properly applied, to be correct, I dissent.
An accurate statement of the settled rule is that the “statute of limitations does not begin to run until the claimant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the existence of all elements essential to the cause of action.” Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. Stiles, 756 P.2d 288, 291 (Alaska 1988) (in suit brought by worker who was injured when safety helmet, designed to protect against blows such as the one suffered, splintered, the accident gave “Stiles ... enough information to give a reasonable person a suspicion that the safety helmet may have failed”); Russell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 743 P.2d 372, 375 (Alaska 1987) (in suit alleging gender discrimination, statutory period began to run when plaintiff was told that she was a “minority bump” from the police academy class); Gudenau & Co., Inc. v. Sweeney Insurance, Inc., 736 P.2d 763, 766 (Alaska 1987) (in insurance broker malpractice suit, summary judgment inappropriate where reasonable minds may disagree concerning latest reasonable date of discovery of defendant’s failure to procure all-inclusive insurance coverage which defendant promised to provide); Hanebuth v. Bell Helicopters Int'l, 694 P.2d 143, 146-47 (Alaska 1984) (in suit for wrongful death arising out of helicopter crash in remote area of Alaska, the wreckage not found until almost eight years after the crash, statute of limitations did not begin to run until plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered the cause of the crash, which could not be determined until after wreckage found); Greater Area Incorporated v. Bookman, 657 P.2d 828, 829, 831 (Alaska 1982) (in malpractice suit against attorney for failure to register stock as required.by state security laws, statute of limitations did not begin to run until a plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered existence of all elements of his cause of action, not when attorney’s negligence occurred). Before a claimant receives notice of facts sufficient to prompt a reasonable person to begin inquiry to protect his or her rights, the claimant is not deemed to be omniscient. Rather, a claimant is deemed only to “have notice of all facts which reasonable inquiry would disclose.” Russell, 743 P.2d at 376.
In Mine Safety, it was “uncontroverted that Stiles knew he was hit in the head while wearing a safety helmet designed to protect against such blows. The helmet cracked and the suspension clips broke upon impact.” 756 P.2d at 292. The court noted that a reasonable person would focus immediately upon the safety helmet after receiving a head injury; Stiles was aware at the time of the accident that the helmet did not perform as well as it should have. Id. at 292 n. 4. Accordingly, it was reasonable for Stiles to have inquired into the basis for a products liability suit as soon as he regained his competency after the date of the accident. Id. at 292. Here, on the other hand, Palmer was not subjectively aware that “engine trouble” was the problem at the time she learned of the crash— September 11, 1986. Thus, the question becomes when Palmer should have reasonably begun inquiry regarding a possible products liability claim based upon “engine trouble.”
The linchpin of the court’s conclusion is its statement that “[a] careful reading of Mine Safety establishes that, upon notification of injury or death, the claimant or estate has an affirmative duty to investigate all potential causes of action before the statute of limitations expires.” Op. at 634. This is neither a careful reading of *638Mine Safety nor the issue before the court in this case. It is a reformulation of the rule articulated in Mine Safety, and it would require claimants to be omniscient. Under this reformulated rule, in order to act reasonably a claimant must begin an immediate investigation of all possible causes of an accident, no matter how farfetched, comparatively unlikely, or well-concealed they may be.
Mere knowledge of a plane crash and a resulting death does not put a reasonable person on notice to investigate “engine trouble” (or more narrowly, a possibly defective carburetor) as the basis for a products liability claim. We implicitly rejected this notion in Hanebuth, where as here the plaintiffs knew of an accident and deaths, yet nonetheless were permitted to invoke the discovery rule and bring a products liability action over eight years after gaining this knowledge.1 See Hanebuth, 694 P.2d at 147-48.
The Colorado Supreme Court, in First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 744 P.2d 1197, 1201 (Colo.1987), explicitly rejected the notion that mere knowledge of death gives constructive notice of a products liability action against the manufacturers of an airplane. The court reasoned:
As the facts of this case demonstrate, logic and common sense require rejection of this argument.... Negligent conduct [by the manufacturer] cannot be presumed from the happening of an accident, but may be established by the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident. Frequently, some time is required for interested persons to discover sufficient information about the significant circumstances surrounding and contributing to an injury or death to permit accurate assessment of the actual causes of such injury or death. Furthermore, the pattern of facts surrounding different accidents will by necessity vary widely. For these reasons, the question of whether a plaintiff applied reasonable diligence in discovering that a death was caused by a negligent act must generally be deemed a question of fact for determination by the fact-finder, whether jury or judge. Whether at some fixed moment in time a particular plaintiff should have known the material facts forming the basis of one or more tort claims that might be filed as the result of a death is not a question which may be considered a question of law.
First Interstate, 744 P.2d at 1201-02.
Under Mine Safety and Russell, a claimant is on inquiry notice of a claim when the claimant is in possession (or reasonably should be in possession) of facts drawing (or which reasonably should draw) the claimant’s attention to the particular problem. Mine Safety, 756 P.2d at 291-92 (when a safety helmet, designed to protect against blows such as the one suffered, splintered, the accident gave “Stiles ... enough information to give a reasonable person a suspicion that the safety helmet may have failed”); Russell, 743 P.2d at 376 (claimant was undisputedly thinking along the lines of the eventual cause of action well before two years). While a claimant does not need to know the precise technical explanation for a defect before the statute starts to run, Mine Safety, 756 P.2d at 291, she must have notice of facts sufficient to focus her attention on a particular cause of harm.
In short, the relevant inquiry is whether Palmer knew (or should have known) of facts which actually (or should have) focused her attention on a defective carburetor (or even more broadly, “engine trouble”) by September 20, 1986, nine days after learning of the accident and two years before the complaint was filed.
*639Section 830.10(b) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations answers whether it was reasonable for Palmer to have had any inkling of “engine trouble” by September 20, 1986. The regulation provides simply and clearly:
[p]rior to the time the [NTSB] or its authorized representative takes custody of aircraft wreckage, mail or cargo, such wreckage, mail or cargo may not be disturbed or moved except to the extent necessary:
(1) To remove persons injured or trapped;
(2) To protect the wreckage from further damage; or
(3) To protect the public from injury.
49 C.F.R. § 830.10(b) (1989) (emphasis added).
In this case, representatives of the NTSB did not get out to the crash site to take custody of the wreckage until September 30. There is no evidence in the record that Palmer knew anything more before then regarding the cause of the crash; indeed, Palmer’s affidavit is to the contrary.
It simply cannot be said that Palmer reasonably should have "known of a possibly defective carburetor (or even more broadly, “engine trouble”) before September 30th, or reasonably should have begun an investigation into such a possibility before then. Such a decision faults her for not having raced the NTSB to the crash site and disturbed it.2 Federal law prohibits such action.3 To say that Palmer reasonably should have begun an investigation before then necessarily implies that she could have lawfully done so. Presumably, the court is not advocating that Palmer and others similarly situated violate federal law.
The earliest date that Palmer arguably could have acquired lawful access to the crash site and conceivably could have found out something concerning the cause of the crash is September 30, 1986; the complaint was filed less than two years after this. At the very least this issue was improperly disposed of on summary judgment; a reasonable trier of fact certainly could find that it was reasonable for Palmer to obey unambiguous federal law.
Further, I cannot understand how the court can distinguish this case from Hane-buth. As long as federal law prohibits her from inspecting the crash site, a proposition conceded by the court, Op. at 636 n. 5, Palmer is in no better position to pursue a products liability claim than were the plaintiffs in Hanebuth, who were unable to locate the crash wreckage until five years after the crash.
The court has lost sight of the purpose of the discovery rule. The discovery rule addresses when the statutory time period within which one must bring a claim begins to run. The court instead addresses whether Palmer had a “reasonable” amount of time to sue. Op. at 636. The legislature, not the court, has the authority to establish a “reasonable” amount of time to sue and to adopt a statute of limitations accordingly-
Under the court’s analysis of the discovery rule, if the NTSB had. not released the aircraft until one month before the two-year anniversary of the crash, Palmer would have either one month or a “reasonable” amount of time to identify the plane’s defective component and file a complaint against the component manufacturer. If we assume that identifying suspect components, determining which experts are necessary to analyze the components, and inspecting and testing the components to determine which components are defective, will take more than one month, counsel for Palmer has two choices. One, counsel can investigate thoroughly at the risk that a trial judge will second-guess the reasonableness of the amount of time taken and *640may dismiss Palmer’s complaint. Two, counsel can simply obtain a parts list and sue everybody who manufactured a component used in the aircraft, even though counsel has no factual basis for suing any particular manufacturer. The complaint will not be dismissed for having been filed beyond the statute of limitations, but the Civil Rule 11 sanctions may, and probably should, be horrendous. Do we really want to provide an incentive for baseless lawsuits against all possible defendants? I think not. Apparently the court thinks otherwise.
This case is quite different from an air disaster in which there are survivors, witnesses, or other readily available sources of evidence from which “engine trouble” might be inferred or investigated at the very outset. The NTSB is frequently able to take custody of wreckage within hours of a crash. Under such circumstances it may be reasonable to expect survivors or representatives of decedents to begin investigation of the causes of a plane crash immediately. Here there were no survivors, no witnesses, and no other investigatory avenues to explore. Further, it was illegal for Palmer to inspect the plane before September 30, 1986. Our settled rule of law holds that the statute of limitations cannot begin to run before that date. Accordingly, I dissent.

. The date of the helicopter flight was October 9, 1974, and thus by deduction the date of the crash was October 9, 1974. Presumptive death certificates were obtained by the families of the decedents declaring October 9, 1974, to be the date of death. The presumptive death certificates were obtained more than two years before the complaint was filed against Bell Helicopter International. Additionally, claims by families of the decedents against Evergreen Helicopters, which operated the Bell helicopter, were settled more than five years before the crash wreckage was found on August 21, 1982. Suit was filed against Bell Helicopters International on October 18, 1982. Hanebuth, 694 P.2d at 147-48.

. This is precisely what the court does. See Op. at 634-35 n. 4 (implying that the estate’s failure to violate federal law was "dilatory.”)

. 49 U.S.C.App. § 1472(p) (Supp.V 1987) (provides for a fine and up to ten years imprisonment for the knowing and unauthorized removal, concealment or withholding of any part of a wrecked aircraft). See also 49 U.S.C.App. § 1471(a)(1) (Supp.V 1987) (provides for a civil fine of $1,000 for a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 830.-10(b)).