Hamilton v. Royal International PetroLeum Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• claim accrued when plaintiff was “aware of circumstances indicating that he had suffered a form of ‘actionable harm’ and should have discovered his injury at that time”
• general denial of complaint and statute of limitations defense causes general verdict for defendant to be reasonably rendered on one or more distinct grounds
• \[t]he three year provision of § 52-577 is applicable to all tort actions other than those excepted therefrom by § 52-584 or other sections\
• in negligence actions brought under Connecticut law, “injury” means actionable harm for statute of limitations purposes
• Accrual of medical malpractice action occurs on discovery of some form of actionable harm, not on discovery of applicable legal theories.
• because claim was “based upon a lack of informed consent and not an absence of consent,” it was not a battery claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).