Are there valid reasons for filing a tort claim late? If so, what are
they? Can you cite examples, for state of Idaho?

---

Request for Question Clarification by expertlaw-ga on 02 Apr 2004 07:25 PST

Dear spartacus2000,

By "late", do you mean after the expiration of the limitations period
set by a "statute of limitations"?

---

Clarification of Question by spartacus2000-ga on 02 Apr 2004 09:00 PST

Yes, that is what i mean.

Idaho Code section 6-905
(http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=060090005.K) states
that you must file your tort claim (assuming you actually mean a "tort
claim," i.e., a tort claim against the state or state employee, as
opposed to simply suing someone for tortious conduct) within 180 days
from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been
discovered, whichever is later.  Idaho Code section 6-908
(http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=060090008.K) is pretty
clear that you must bring the claim within the 180-day period. 
Moreover, Idaho Code section 6-911
(http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=060090011.K) says that
you have a two-year statute of limitations in any event, i.e., you
must sue within two years after filing the tort claim.

The only latitude appears to arise in terms of WHEN the 180 days
begins to run.  Once you are on notice of facts sufficient to advise
you that you have a tort claim against the state, the 180 days begins
to run, and that's a pretty hard and fast cut-off.  See Coppley v.
City of Challis, 138 Idaho 154 (Sup. Ct. 2002)
(http://www.lawriter.net/cgi-bin/texis/web/idcaselaw/+XlZeBWt3wBmerRQ+Cgwww/svDoc.html).
 So, for example, if you had a continuing, ongoing damage perhaps
caused by the state and you weren't exactly sure when the claim arose,
you might be able to argue that you weren't on notice and thus the 180
days did not actually begin to run until you were really sure the
state was responsible.

If you do not mean an actual "tort claim" but instead mean suing
someone in tort, all the various statutes of limitation are listed in
Title 5 of the Idaho Code.  See
http://www3.state.id.us/idstat/TOC/05002KTOC.html.  The statutes of
limitation vary depending on the cause of action, but if you cannot
find a statute that is on point, Idaho Code section 5-224 provides a
general four-year statute of limitations that begins to run when the
cause of action has accrued.  This is a tricky phrase, and most cases
dealing with the issue of whether one?s failure to abide by the
statute of limitations is excusable center around when exactly the
cause of action accrued.  Thus, as in my earlier comment, if your
cause of action has not accrued because, e.g., your damages were not
clear or the breach had not yet certainly occurred, you might be able
to argue that the four years (or whatever) did not actually begin to
run until "X," as opposed to "Y," the earlier date that the defendant
will surely argue.

Thus, whether one's failure to abide a particular statute of
limitations is excusable depends on the facts and the particular
statute at issue.  See Wadsworth v. State for a discussion of
?accrual.?  (http://www.lawriter.net/cgi-bin/texis/web/idcaselaw/+SHeVTEFewxbnm1ez68pXwww/svDoc.html).
 If ?accrual? is not at issue and one just merely ?slept on their
rights,? as they say, and blew the statute, there is usually little
hope for redemption.  Some excuses that might work include: incapacity
or disability that prevent the plaintiff from filing timely; service
in the armed forces during wartime that prevent timely filing; or if
the delay is excused by fraud (see Ryan v. Woodin;
http://www.lawriter.net/cgi-bin/texis/web/idcaselaw/+adje2Wt3wBmeo54+C1www/svDoc.html).
 Generally, it is an equitable consideration?how good is your excuse
for blowing the statute and how badly will the intended defendant be
harmed if you are allowed to proceed after the bar date.