Each of the fifty states have statutes of limitations or periods in which an injured person has to file a lawsuit to recover for damages from a defective product. The applicable period of time varies from state to state, some are more restrictive and shorter than others. The rub comes in when the defect or the harm caused by that defect does not manifest itself until after the prescriptive period has run. Why should the innocent victim be treated differently or left without recourse just because of the state they live in when the products are marketed and sold nationwide?
The pros and cons of this issue was recently debated by the Oregon state senate. Their proposed bill would extend the legal prescription period in product liability claims to 10 years from the date the product was purchased. An additional provision, perhaps more importantly, gives the victim the choice of applying the statute of limitations of the state where the product was manufactured.
The bill will now go to the Oregon House of Representatives for consideration.
Perhaps consumer advocates and concerned voters in each state should pressure their individual legislature to ensure that their citizens are not left holding the bag by a shorter and more restrictive statute of limitations than those of their sister states.
Richard J. Arsenault, 2011
Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to simply adopt a discovery rule to trigger the statute of limitations?