(a) If in any action duly commenced within the time limited therefor in this chapter, the writ fails of a sufficient service or return by any unavoidable accident, or by any default or neglect of the officer to whom it is committed; or if the writ is abated, or the action otherwise avoided or defeated by the death of any party thereto, or for any matter of form; or if after a verdict for the plaintiff, the judgment shall not be given for the plaintiff because of some error appearing on the face of the record which vitiates the proceedings; or if a judgment for the plaintiff is reversed on appeal or a writ of error; a new action may be commenced, for the same cause of action, at any time within 1 year after the abatement or other determination of the original action, or after the reversal of the judgment therein.
(b) If in the original action, the benefit of this chapter is pleaded, and a verdict upon such defense is found for the plaintiff, such verdict shall be conclusive evidence that the original action was commenced within the time limited therefor.
Code 1852,
§§
2752, 2753;
Code 1915,
§
4681;
Code 1935,
§
5139;
10 Del. C. 1953,
§
8117;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
59
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case:
Beal v. Gen. Motors Corp., 354 F. Supp. 423 (D. Del. 1973).
Beal v. Gen. Motors Corp., 354 F. Supp. 423 (D. Del. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff seeks to avoid *429 the plain effect of this statute here by arguing that the statute was tolled while this assertedly “latent” defect remained undiscovered.”
Ontario Hydro v. Zallea Sys., Inc., 569 F. Supp. 1261 (D. Del. 1983).
“where the doctor, during an abdominal operation for correction of a hernia, left a large metallic hemostat inside the plaintiff’s body, the court applied the time of discovery rule, but in doing so warned: We expressly limit this holding to [the facts of this case]; we do not…”
Russell v. Olmedo, 275 A.2d 249 (Del. 1971).
· cites it 3× “WOLCOTT, Chief Justice: This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court dismissing an action for personal injuries by reason of 10 Del.C. § 8118, imposing a two-year period of limitations for the bringing of such actions.”
Layton v. Allen, 246 A.2d 794 (Del. 1968).
“The Statute of Limitations governing this case is 10 Del.C. § 8118: “§ 8118. Personal injuries “No action for the recovery of damages upon a claim for alleged personal injuries shall be brought after the expiration of 2 years from the date upon which it is claimed that such…”
Hood v. McConemy, 53 F.R.D. 435 (D. Del. 1971).
· cites it 2× “personal injuries the Delaware Statute 10 Del.C. § 8118 provides two (2) years and the Pennsylvania Statute 12 P.”
Leavy v. Saunders, 319 A.2d 44 (Del. Super. Ct. 1974).
· cites it 2× “• Defendant contends that the action is barred by the Delaware statute of limitations, 10 Del.C. § 8118, in that this action was not filed within two years after the accident.”
Isaacson, Stolper & Co. v. Artisan's Sav. Bank, 330 A.2d 130 (Del. 1974).
“The Court considered the ef- *133 feet of a different limitation statute, 10 Del.C. § 8118, (which refers to the time when “injuries were sustained”) and concluded that an injury was sustained when its effects were felt or produced.”
McNeill v. Tarumianz, 138 F. Supp. 713 (D. Del. 1956).
· cites it 2× “not evidenced by a record or by an instrument under seal, no action based on a detailed statement of the mutual demands in the nature of debit and credit between parties arising out of contractual or fiduciary relations, no action based on a promise, no action based on a…”
Sines v. Wyatt, 281 A.2d 499 (Del. Super. Ct. 1971).
· cites it 6× “Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the filing of the complaint and praecipe on February 10, 1970 did not constitute an “action” as contemplated by 10 Del.C. § 8118, and that it was not until December that a praecipe gave the correct address where…”
Collins v. Wilmington Med. Ctr., Inc., 319 A.2d 107 (Del. 1974).
· cites it 2× “DUFFY, Justice: In this medical malpractice action the Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment because the complaint was *108 not filed within the period of limitation fixed by 10 Del.C. § 8118. 1 Reference is made to the opinion of the Court below, 311 A.”
Nardo v. Guido DeAscanis & Sons, Inc., 254 A.2d 254 (Del. Super. Ct. 1969).
“The Court stated that it was not adopting the time-of-discovery rule as such because 10 Del.C. § 8118, with which it was dealing, was not an “accrual” statute.”
— 10 Del. C. § 8118(a) — 14 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.