DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd.

Third Circuit

DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd.

651 F.2d 908

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided June 22, 1981·No. Nos. 80-2762 to 80-2765·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The question for decision in this appeal by plaintiffs from adverse summary judgments in diversity actions brought under Pennsylvania law is whether the district court erred in determining that when the plaintiffs knew the physical causes and sources of their injuries, their lack of knowledge about the legal bases for prospective claims will not toll the Pennsylvania statute of limitations. We affirm.

We are satisfied that Judge Newcomer’s opinion in Grabowski v. Turner & Newall, 516 F.Supp. 114 (E.D.Pa.1980), sets forth the appropriate legal precepts and properly applied the undisputed facts thereto. Additional support for the view we take is found in Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. 290 (Phila.C.P.1980) (Takiff, J.). See also Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc., —— Pa.Super. -, -, 425 A.2d 428, 436 (1981) (citing Volpe with approval); cf. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979) (interpreting two year limitation period in Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401).

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The question for decision in this appeal by plaintiffs from adverse summary judgments in diversity actions brought under Pennsylvania law is whether the district court erred in determining that when the plaintiffs knew the physical causes and sources of their injuries, their lack of knowledge about the legal bases for prospective claims will not toll the Pennsylvania statute of limitations. We affirm.

We are satisfied that Judge Newcomer’s opinion in Grabowski v. Turner & Newall, 516 F.Supp. 114 (E.D.Pa.1980), sets forth the appropriate legal precepts and properly applied the undisputed facts thereto. Additional support for the view we take is found in Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. 290 (Phila.C.P.1980) (Takiff, J.). See also Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc., —— Pa.Super. -, -, 425 A.2d 428, 436 (1981) (citing Volpe with approval); cf. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979) (interpreting two year limitation period in Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401).

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 651 F.2d 908 (3d Cir. 1981).

Pincite

651 F.2d 908 (DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

651 F.2d 908 (Third Circuit, 1981)

Opinion

Related