(a) An action to recover for ionizing radiation injury or injury from other noxious agents
medically recognized as having a prolonged latent development shall be commenced within
three years after the person suffering the injury has knowledge or ought reasonably
to have knowledge of having suffered the injury and of the cause thereof, but in no
event more than 20 years from the date of the last occurrence to which the injury
is attributed.
(b) An action or proceeding to recover for latent ionizing radiation injury, or injury
from other noxious agents medically recognized as having a prolonged latent development
shall not be barred by recovery in any earlier action or proceeding, unless the plaintiff
in the earlier action or proceeding was actually awarded damages for the latent injury,
or knew or reasonably could be expected to know that such latent injury would occur,
and its nature and extent with sufficient particularity to establish entitlement to
a specific amount of damages on account thereof. (Added 1967, No. 32, § 1, eff. March 16, 1967.)
Cavanaugh v. Abbott Labs., 496 A.2d 154 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 21דAllen, supra, whether it is barred by the :20-year statute of repose, 12 V.S.A. § 518, which bars claims commenced more than 20 years after the “last occurrence to which injury is attributed.”
Campbell v. Stafford, 2011 VT 11 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 10דPlaintiff’s amended complaint added a second count (Count II) to her original complaint, claiming that the longer statute of limitations in 12 V.S.A. § 518(a) should be applied to plaintiffs case as opposed to the statute of limitations in 12 V.”
Shirley Ann Carpin v. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 2024 VT 27 (Vt. 2024). · cites it 8דThe civil division granted summary judgment to defendants based on the twenty-year statute of repose under 12 V.S.A. § 518(a), finding the “last occurrence” to which her mother’s mesothelioma was attributed fell outside the repose period.”
State v. Warshow, 410 A.2d 1000 (Vt. 1979). · cites it 2ד12 V.S.A. § 518. It cannot be said categorically that "[i]mplicit within these statutory enactments is the policy choice that the benefits of nuclear energy outweighs its dangers," as the concurring opinion states.”
State v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2016 VT 61 (Vt. 2016). “2d at 160 (citing 12 V.S.A. § 518(a)). Subsequently, in Lillicrap v.”
Leo v. Hillman, 665 A.2d 572 (Vt. 1995). “§ 1492(a) (tolling the running of the statute while defendant is out of state); 12 V.S.A. § 518(a) (latent development injury claim must be brought within three years “after the person suffering the injury has knowledge or ought reasonably to have knowledge of having suffered…”
Univ. of Vermont v. W.R. Grace & Co., 565 A.2d 1354 (Vt. 1989). “” 3 See also 12 V.S.A. § 518(a) (similar discovery-driven statute of limitations for “radiation injury or injury from other noxious agents medically recognized as having a prolonged latent development”); 12 V.”
Union Sch. Dist. No. 20 v. Lench, 365 A.2d 508 (Vt. 1976). “12 V.S.A. § 518. The second, in 1976, related to personal injuries by act or default of another only, as discussed supra.”
Congdon v. Taggart Bros., Inc., 571 A.2d 656 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 2דIn that time it has also enacted a new statute of limitation for the sale of goods expressly excluding discovery or knowledge of the breach.”
Soutiere v. Betzdearborn, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D. Vt. 2002). · cites it 2דSee Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 512 (4) (Supp.2001).”
Mauran v. Mary Fletcher Hosp., 318 F. Supp. 297 (D. Vt. 1970). “Likewise, plaintiffs’ suggestion that this case may be within 12 V.S.A. § 518(a) (extending the period of limitation to twenty years in the case of non-discovery of injury) cannot be followed for two reasons: The effective date of that act was March 16, 1967, more than three…”
Cavanaugh v. Abbott Labs., 496 A.2d 154 (Vt. 1985). “Allen, supra, whether it is barred by the :20-year statute of repose, 12 V.S.A. § 518, which bars claims commenced more than 20 years after the “last occurrence to which injury is attributed.”
Campbell v. Stafford, 2011 VT 11 (Vt. 2011). “Plaintiff’s amended complaint added a second count (Count II) to her original complaint, claiming that the longer statute of limitations in 12 V.S.A. § 518(a) should be applied to plaintiffs case as opposed to the statute of limitations in 12 V.”
Shirley Ann Carpin v. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 2024 VT 27 (Vt. 2024). “The civil division granted summary judgment to defendants based on the twenty-year statute of repose under 12 V.S.A. § 518(a), finding the “last occurrence” to which her mother’s mesothelioma was attributed fell outside the repose period.”
State v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2016 VT 61 (Vt. 2016). “2d at 160 (citing 12 V.S.A. § 518(a)). Subsequently, in Lillicrap v.”
Leo v. Hillman, 665 A.2d 572 (Vt. 1995). “§ 1492(a) (tolling the running of the statute while defendant is out of state); 12 V.S.A. § 518(a) (latent development injury claim must be brought within three years “after the person suffering the injury has knowledge or ought reasonably to have knowledge of having suffered…”
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.