holding that the single act exception applies when plaintiff’s claim rests solely upon the University’s negligence in failing to disclose the risks and the manufacturer’s recommendations associated with insertion of an IUD
How later courts described this case
- holding that the single act exception applies when plaintiff’s claim rests solely upon the University’s negligence in failing to disclose the risks and the manufacturer’s recommendations associated with insertion of an IUD
- concluding that where defendants failed to disclose risks associated with insertion of intrauterine device, claim accrued when plaintiff was hospitalized with disease caused by device
- determining whether trial court erred in applying law and whether issue of fact exists on review of summary judgment
- “Alleged negligence coupled with the alleged resulting damage is the gravamen in deciding the date when the cause of action accrues.” (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
YETKA, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the view of Justice Wahl.