finding the date of the defendant’s “negligent performance” is the date of injury, not when the plaintiff discovered the injury later
How later courts described this case
- finding the date of the defendant’s “negligent performance” is the date of injury, not when the plaintiff discovered the injury later
- chapter 613A case; McCormick, J., dissenting
- duty of court clerk to pay over deposited funds on demand
- “Time to sue . . . runs from the wrongful death, loss, or injury . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Young, 665 P.2d 108 (1983)
In light of these differences, the defendants’ citation of Montgomery is inapposite.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Justice
(dissenting).
The notice of claim statute merely specifies the action must be commenced “within six months”, unless the sixty-day notice is given, without expressly providing when the six month period begins. The Municipal Tort Claims Act is remedial. It is liberally construed. The notice provision is a limitation on the right. It is not favored. Vermeer v. Sneller, 190 N.W.2d 389, 394 (Iowa 1971); Sprung v. Rasmussen, 180 N.W.2d 430, 433 (Iowa 1970).
In these circumstances, I do not believe the absence of words affirmatively providing that the six month period starts when the cause of action “accrues” or “arises” forecloses application of the discovery rule. The legislature did not use words to negate its applicability. The question is simply not answered by express language in the statute. Therefore in determining legislative intent we must choose between two possible constructions of the statute. Under the principles expláined in Vermeer and Sprung , we must select the construction which promotes the remedy. Doing so, we should hold the discovery rule applies.