Abstract
“Under the law of the State of Washington, which must be applied in this case with respect to the Statute of Limitations issue (Besser v Squibb & Sons), the question of when a plaintiff discovered, or, with reasonable diligence, should have discovered, all of the essential elements of her cause of action, creates an issue of fact.
FRASER v. ELI LILLY & CO., Leagle, 1995421221AD2d200_1322, November 14, 1995.
In this case, the injury occurred prior to the enactment and effective date of the Washington Revised Code § 7.72.060 (3) (L 1981, ch 27, § 7). Accordingly, plaintiff’s knowledge, as of May 1983, that her injuries were caused by her mother’s gestational ingestion of Stilbestrol, standing alone, was insufficient to trigger the accrual of her cause of action, unless she otherwise may be imputed with knowledge of the additional elements of her cause of action, including knowledge of the defective or dangerous nature of the product; the existence of a seller in the business of selling the product; and a lack of substantial change in the condition of the product.”
… read the full paper FRASER v. ELI LILLY & CO., on Leagle.
More DES DiEthylStilbestrol Resources
- Other papers on DES cases and lawsuits.
- Diethylstilbestrol DES studies by topics.