CACI VF-410 Statute of Limitations—Delayed Discovery—Reasonable Investigation Would Not Have Disclosed Pertinent Facts
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
VF-410 Statute of Limitations—Delayed Discovery—Reasonable Investigation Would Not Have Disclosed Pertinent Facts
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
1.Did [name of plaintiff]’s claimed harm occur before [insert date from applicable statute of limitations]?
If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
2.Before [insert date from applicable statute of limitations], did [name of plaintiff] know of facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] had suffered harm that was caused by someone’s wrongful conduct?
2.Would a reasonable and diligent investigation have disclosed before [insert date from applicable statute of limitations] that [specify factual basis for cause of action, e.g., “a medical device” or “inadequate medical treatment”] contributed to [name of plaintiff]’s harm?
After [this verdict form has/all verdict forms have] been signed, notify the [clerk/bailiff/court attendant] that you are ready to present your verdict in the courtroom.
New December 2007; Revised December 2010
Directions for Use
The special verdict forms in this section are intended only as models. They may need to be modified depending on the facts of the case.
This verdict form is based on CACI No. 454, Affirmative Defense—Statute of Limitations, and CACI No. 455, Statute of Limitations—Delayed Discovery. If the only issue is whether the plaintiff’s harm occurred before or after the limitation date, omit question 2. If the plaintiff claims that the delayed-discovery rule applies to save the action, use the first option for question 2. If the plaintiff claims that a reasonable investigation would not have disclosed the pertinent information before the limitation date, use the second option for question 2.
The date to be inserted throughout is the applicable limitation period before the filing date. For example, if the limitation period is two years and the filing date is August 31, 2007, the date is August 31, 2005.
In question 1, “claimed harm” refers to all of the elements of the cause of action, which must have occurred before the cause of action accrues and the limitation period begins. (Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1029 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 661].) In some cases, it may be necessary to modify this term to refer to specific facts that give rise to the cause of action.
The first option for question 2 may be modified to refer to specific facts that the plaintiff may have known.