Does a conversation with the son of a plaintiff who alleges she had been sexually assaulted constitute a breach of the statute of limitations?

Further, we doubtand defendant's meager showing fails to establishthat the conversation with the son imparted enough notice of enough facts to commence the statutory period. At that point, plaintiff did not know she had been physically injuredonly that she had been lied to. Until her own test for the virus came back positive, she could have claimed no more than injuria absque damno"wrong without damage," the invasion of a legal right with no concrete consequential detrimentfor which a civil action would not lie. (See Fields v. Napa Mill. Co. (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 442, 447 ["It is fundamental that a negligent act is not actionable unless it results in injury to another . . . ."].) She only learned that she had in fact been damagedhad contracted genital herpessome six weeks after her suspicions were aroused, and well inside the two years preceding the filing of the complaint.

No error appears in the trial court's failure to sustain the limitations defense.