Unless otherwise provided in sections 1302.98, 1304.35, and 2305.04 to 2305.14 of the Revised Code, if a person entitled to bring any action mentioned in those sections, unless for penalty or forfeiture, is, at the time the cause of action accrues, within the age of minority or of unsound mind, the person may bring it within the respective times limited by those sections, after the disability is removed. When the interests of two or more parties are joint and inseparable, the disability of one shall inure to the benefit of all.
After the cause of action accrues, if the person entitled to bring the action becomes of unsound mind and is adjudicated as such by a court of competent jurisdiction or is confined in an institution or hospital under a diagnosed condition or disease which renders the person of unsound mind, the time during which the person is of unsound mind and so adjudicated or so confined shall not be computed as any part of the period within which the action must be brought.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 177
cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Wilson v. Durrani (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6827 (Ohio 2020).
Wilson v. Durrani (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6827 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 9דFirst, the statute of repose is tolled “as to persons within the age of minority or of unsound mind as provided in” R.C. 2305.16. Second, R.C. 2305.113(D) extends the four-year repose period for two specific categories of claims: (1) those that accrue in the last year of the…”
Weaver v. Edwin Shaw Hosp., 819 N.E.2d 1079 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 20ד{¶ 1} The central issue presented to us on this appeal concerns whether the disabilities of minority or unsound mind as referred to in R.C. 2305.16 can be removed only by attaining the age of majority or being declared of sound mind, or, in addition, whether they can also be…”
Sarmiento v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 835 N.E.2d 692 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 19ד{¶ 2} The second issue, which is raised in the cross-appeal of appellee and cross-appellant, Grange Mutual Casualty Company (“Grange”), is whether an insured who is a minor is bound by the terms and conditions of an insurance policy, including a two-year contractual limitation…”
McCarthy v. Lee, 2023 Ohio 4696 (Ohio 2023). · cites it 19דThe majority opinion today turns his observation on its head, misusing it in completely the opposite context to decimate the bedrock rights of access to the courts for children, holding that the medical-claim statute of repose bars even their derivative claims (despite the fact…”
Mominee v. Scherbarth, 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 9דHowever, this limitations period was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2305.16, the “disabilities” statute, for minors until they attained the age of majority.”
Thomas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., 2011 Ohio 6712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13ד{¶ 23} Thomas argues, as she did in the trial court, that the two-year statute was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2305.16. That section provides: {¶ 24} “Unless otherwise provided in sections 1302.”
Qualls v. Peregrine Health Servs., 2022 Ohio 4644 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 21דAppellees argued that R.C. 2305.16 did not toll the applicable limitations period, as Ms.”
Elliot v. Durrani, 2022 Ohio 4190 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 8דSee R.C. 2305.16. Second, the statute of repose is subject to a modified discovery rule: 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO If a person making a medical claim, * * * in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, could not have discovered the injury resulting from the act or omission…”
Elliot v. Durrani, 2021 Ohio 3055 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8ד{¶33} Built into the statute of repose is an express exception for legal disabilities under R.C. 2305.16. There are striking similarities between the absent-defendant statute in R.”
McKay v. Cutlip, 609 N.E.2d 1272 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6ד*490 McKay argues, however, that the running of the statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to former R.C. 2305.16. 2 That provision declares: “Unless otherwise specially provided in sections 2305.”
New Riegel Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Buehrer Grp. Architecture & Eng., Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 2851 (Ohio 2019). · cites it 3ד131(A)(3) includes an exception to the statute of repose for plaintiffs “within the age of minority or of unsound mind” pursuant to R.C. 2305.16: Notwithstanding an otherwise applicable period of limitations specified in this chapter or in section 2125.”
Ruther v. Kaiser, 2012 Ohio 5686 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 4ד113(C) provides: Except as to persons within the age of minority or of unsound mind as provided by section 2305.16 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in division (D) of this section, both of the following apply: (1) No action upon a medical, dental, optometric, or…”
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.