Summary
In DaMato v. Turner Newall, Ltd., 651 F.2d 908 (3d Cir. 1981)(per curiam), we noted Pennsylvania's acceptance of a standard for defining the level of knowledge a plaintiff must have before the period of limitations will start to run.
Summary of this case from O'Brien v. Eli LillyOpinion
Nos. 80-2762 to 80-2765.
Argued June 9, 1981.
Decided June 22, 1981.
Edward Rubin, Robert Redler (argued), Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin Maxwell, Lansdale, Pa., for appellants.
Patrick T. Ryan, Virginia Gibson-Mason, Drinker, Biddle Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., David Booth Beers (argued), S. Elizabeth Gibson, Thomas R. Andrews, Shea Gardner, Washington, D.C., for Cassiar Asbestos Corp. Ltd.
Edward B. Joseph, Frederic L. Goldfein, Ominsky, Joseph Welsh, Philadelphia, Pa., for Asbestos Corp., Ltd.
Robert M. Britton, James F. Gallo, Post Schell, Philadelphia, Pa., for Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd.
Charles W. Craven, Marshall, Dennehey Warner, Philadelphia, Pa., for Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos, Canadian Johns-Manville Co., Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
G. Wayne Renneisen, Joel D. Gusky, Harvey, Pennington, Hertin Renneisen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Before ALDISERT, GIBBONS and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
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.