Dillashaw

Dillashaw v. Ayerst Laboratories, Inc.

Good Law
141 Cal. App. 3d 35·190 Cal. Rptr. 68·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1692
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 1983Civ. 66035California2,114 words

Opinion

Opinion

Compton, J.

Plaintiff Robert Richard Dillashaw, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, instituted an action against Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., (Ayerst) for personal injury from a defective product.

In essence the complaint alleged that plaintiff’s mother had, during her pregnancy, taken the drug Mysoline which is manufactured by Ayerst and that the drug produced birth defects in the plaintiff.

Plaintiff was born October 1, 1971. Civil Code section 29 provides in part: “. . . any action by or on behalf of a minor for personal injuries sustained prior to or in the course of his birth must be brought within six years from the date of the birth of the minor, ...” Thus in the ordinary course of events the action in this case would have been barred on October 1, 1977.

The bar of the limitation period is, however, subject to the ameliorating rule that the period does not run against an individual who is ignorant of the existence of a cause of action and only begins to run when the existence of the cause of action is discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. (Segura v. Brundage (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 19, 25 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 777 ], citing…

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.