Discovery rule

For some claims the clock starts when you knew or should have known you were harmed.

It matters where the injury was not obvious at the time — which is rare in a crash and common in a medical case. This is general information, not legal advice.

What it means

The general rule is that a claim accrues when the harm occurs. The discovery rule is the exception: for certain claims, time runs from when a reasonable person would have suspected that someone had done something wrong to them.

California's medical negligence statute is the clearest example of it written into legislation — three years from the injury, or one year from discovery, whichever comes first. Note the "whichever comes first": discovery can shorten the period as well as delay its start.

Do not plan around it. Where a case may depend on the discovery rule, the safe course is to treat the earliest arguable date as the real one.

Where this is dealt with properly

This entry is the short answer. These pages own the subject.

• Statute of limitations
• Why firms turn down cases

Common questions

I only realised months later that the injury was serious. Does the clock restart?

Realising an injury is worse than you thought is not the same as discovering you were injured by someone's conduct. The distinction is narrow, and it is not a reason to let a deadline approach.

Sources: Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5 (the statutory discovery formulation for medical negligence); Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1 (the ordinary two-year period the exception operates against).