There’s one statute of limitations for pre-birth injuries and another for injuries caused by exposure to hazardous materials and toxic substances. Which one governs an action for pre-birth injuries caused by exposure to toxic substances? In Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc., a case where the answer determines whether the plaintiff’s action is timely or barred, the Supreme Court today holds that it’s the toxic-substances statute and that the plaintiff can proceed with her lawsuit, which was filed when she was 12.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan notes the judicial obligation to harmonize statutes when possible, but says that can’t be done in this case because “[e]ach statute plainly encompasses plaintiff’s claims, yet the choice of one automatically nullifies the other.” (The court was faced with a similar dissonance problem in May.) The court bases its choice on the fact that “the toxic exposure statute was more recently enacted, and its language plainly encompasses prenatal injuries.”
A divided panel of the Second District, Division Eight, Court of Appeal, held that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the pre-birth-injuries statute of limitations, disagreeing with a 2014 Sixth District opinion. The Supreme Court reverses the former.