Duty

Duty v. Abex Corp.

Good Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1032·214 Cal. App. 3d 742·263 Cal. Rptr. 13
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 11, 1989A039838California1,360 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff Reola B. Duty appeals the judgment dismissing her lawsuit based upon injury due to exposure to asbestos. The trial court directed verdict in favor of defendants on the ground the statute of limitations had run. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.2 the asbestos injury limitations period does not begin to run until “disability.” Plaintiff contends that a retired person such as herself is not precluded from regular employment by her injury and therefore cannot suffer a “disability” within the meaning of the statute of limitations, which therefore never commenced to run as to her. In the event the statute does apply to limit actions on behalf of retired persons, plaintiff contends that it was for the jury to determine whether she had been disabled from performing her normal occupation of homemaker.

We conclude that section 340.2 does apply to civil actions by retirees for injury caused by asbestos exposure. Because the statutory definition of “disability” does not apply to a retired person such as plaintiff this action was not barred. We therefore reverse the judgment.

Statement of Facts

Plaintiff, who was bom in 1903, was 84 years old…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.