Toxic Exposure Lawsuit Improperly Dismissed: Nevada Supreme Court

A class of plaintiffs suing chemical manufacturers over toxic workplace exposures should have been allowed to continue their lawsuit because a statute of limitations should have been tolled, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a previous case.

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 statute of limitations should have been followed.

The rule allows claims to be filed after the statute of limitations 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 argue that the defendants, including the Union Pacific Railroad and others, knew of the presence of toxic chemicals on the government center’s land and that their lawsuit should have been allowed because the statute of limitations “should not begin to run until could reasonably discover”. their injuries and the cause of those injuries,” the Supreme Court decision said.

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.