California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Winston v. Cnty. of Kern, F071409 (Cal. App. 2016):
The discovery rule only delays accrual until the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action. The discovery rule does not encourage dilatory tactics because plaintiffs are charged with presumptive knowledge of an injury if they have " ' "information of circumstances to put [them] on inquiry" ' " or if they have " ' "the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to [their] investigation." ' " (Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 896-897.) In other words, plaintiffs are required to conduct a reasonable investigation after becoming aware of an injury and are charged with knowledge of the information that would have been revealed by such an investigation. (Id. at p. 897.)
"When the issue is accrual, belated discovery is usually a question of fact, but may be decided as a matter of law when reasonable minds cannot differ." (Blanks v. Shaw (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 375.) We agree with the trial court that, in this case, reasonable minds cannot differ.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.