A class of plaintiffs suing chemical manufacturers over workplace toxic exposures should have been permitted to pursue their lawsuit because a statute of limitations should have been waived, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in a precedential case Thursday.
In Adkins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the Supreme Court said a trial court improperly dismissed the case because a discovery rule extending a two-year limitations period should have been honored.
The rule allows the filing of claims past the limitations period when injured workers discover or “reasonably should have discovered facts supporting a cause of action.”
The plaintiffs allege that either they, or their deceased family members, were exposed to polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCBs, and other toxic chemicals while working at the Clark County Government Center.
The plaintiffs allege the defendants, including Union Pacific Railroad and others, knew about the presence of toxic chemicals on the government center land, and that their lawsuit should have been permitted because the limitation period should “not start to run until they reasonably could have discovered their injuries and the cause of those injuries,” the Supreme Court ruling states.
The court said that despite the trial court’s finding to the contrary, the discovery rule can be applied to the statute of limitations governing wrongful death and personal injury actions, “even in the absence of express language incorporating that rule into the statute.”
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
