New Jersey courts will excuse a missed statute of limitations for various reasons when the complexity of the case explains the delay in filing. For example, when an injured party is misled about the cause of an accident or the identity of a product manufacturer is unknown and not in the party’s possession. However, there is no leeway when due diligence can easily uncover the identity of a potential tortfeasor.
In Wong v. Caram, the plaintiff fell on a defect in the sidewalk along a commercial street in West New York. Within days of the incident, she took photos of the precise location of her fall. She retained an attorney within six months. The attorney obtained tax records to identify the property owner and filed suit within one and a half years.
The problem was that the tax records, upon which plaintiff relied, were based upon an address number on a canopy of a building on property near the sidewalk where the plaintiff fell in the photo. However, the actual location of the fall was on a sidewalk adjacent to the neighboring property owner. Hence, the complaint misidentified the property owner. By the time the plaintiff learned of the mistake, the statute of limitations had run.
Although the plaintiff argued that the relation back doctrine should permit her to pursue the correct property owner, the courts disagreed noting that she had ample opportunity within the two year limitation period to identify the correct party. A simple review of the municipal tax map, a public record available to anyone, would have identified the property owner. Diligent discovery from the misnamed party would have likewise revealed the mistake timely. Thus, the court held that plaintiff failed to investigate her claim in a timely manner and dismissed the case in its entirety.
While the courts have trended towards a leniency to allow flexibility of the statute of limitations, they have only done so when the plaintiff can show diligent effort to identify the tortfeasor in a timely manner, where the party had notice of the claim and, perhaps, some participation in litigation, or when a new defendant has a “unity of interest” with existing defendants in the action. None of these factors were present in the Wong case.