Court Opinion

ID: 9673874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:19:55.298401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:24.456730
License: Public Domain

HEFFERNAN, J.
(concurring). I agree with the court’s disposition of this case. However, I disassociate myself from the obiter dictum in respect to a modification of the period of limitations.
It is indeed apparent that the open-ended period of limitations which commences to run on the date of injury causes problems and may, in some cases, result in substantial injustice. Nevertheless, any change in the method of determining the commencement of a period of limitations must be the result of a policy determination reserved for the legislature. It is presumptuous for this *905court, which does not and cannot have the benefit of public hearings and constituent expression of opinion, to “commend” sua sponte any specific change in the applicable period of limitations. It is enough for us to note that the determination of a period of limitations in respect to products liability presents a substantial problem, worthy of the legislature’s consideration.
I am authorized to state that Justice Day, Justice Abrahamson, and Justice Callow join in this concurrence.