Court Opinion

ID: 9558113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:03:01.727428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:20.126305
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. My difference with the majority stems from the following language in Schiele v. Hobart Corporation, 284 Or 483, 490, 587 P2d 1010 (1978), cited in the majority opinion:
“[T]he statute of limitations begins to run when a reasonably prudent person associates his symptoms with a serious or permanent condition and at the same time perceives the role which the defendant has played in inducing that condition.” (Emphasis supplied.) 55 Or App at --)
*928In the case before us, plaintiff was unaware of the injury to the optic nerve which is the basis of his complaint until April, 1980. I would hold that where, as here, plaintiffs initial injury was inconsequential and not the basis for any subsequent legal action, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time at which the serious or permanent injury which is the basis of the complaint, and defendant’s possible responsibility therefore, were discovered. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.