Hazel v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• construing Kentucky caselaw to place duty to investigate on plaintiff who knew that the cause of his injuries was a fuel-fed automobile fire
• finding that knowledge of “[a]ny fact that should excite [a plaintiff’s] suspicion is the same as actual knowledge of his entire claim . . . [and] the means of knowledge are the same thing in effect as knowledge itself”
• differentiating Ky. Rev. Stat. 413.140(1) from a statute of repose
• “Under the ‘discovery rule,’ a cause of action will not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, not only that he has been injured but also that his injury may have been caused by the defendant’s conduct.”
• “Under -6- the ‘discovery rule,’ a cause of action will not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, not only that he has been injured but also that his injury may have been caused by the defendant’s conduct.”
• “Under -6- the ‘discovery rule,’ a cause of action will not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, not only that he has been injured but also that his injury may have been caused by the defendant’s conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).