CACI No. VF-410. Statute of Limitations - Delayed Discovery - Reasonable Investigation Would Not Have Disclosed Pertinent Facts
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)
Download PDF
VF-410.Statute of Limitations - Delayed Discovery - Reasonable
Investigation Would Not Have Disclosed Pertinent Facts
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did [name of plaintiff]’s claimed harm occur before [insert date
from applicable statute of limitations]?
1. Yes No
1. If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you
answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have
the presiding juror sign and date this form.
2. Before [insert date from applicable statute of limitations], did [name
of plaintiff] discover, or know of facts that would have caused a
reasonable person to suspect, that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it]
had suffered harm that was caused by someone’s wrongful
conduct?
2. Yes No
2. [or]
2. Would a reasonable and diligent investigation have disclosed
before [insert date from applicable statute of limitations] that
[specify factual basis for cause of action] contributed to [name of
plaintiff]’s harm?
2. Yes No
Signed: Presiding Juror
Dated:
After [this verdict form has/all verdict forms have] been signed, notify
the [clerk/bailiff/court attendant] that you are ready to present your
verdict in the courtroom.
New December 2007; Revised December 2010, May 2022
Directions for Use
The special verdict forms in this section are intended only as models. They may
need to be modified depending on the facts of the case.
This verdict form is based on CACI No. 454, Affırmative Defense - Statute of
Limitations, and CACI No. 455, Statute of Limitations - Delayed Discovery. If the
only issue is whether the plaintiff’s harm occurred before or after the limitation date,
425
omit question 2. If the plaintiff claims that the delayed-discovery rule applies to
save the action, use the first option for question 2. If the plaintiff claims that a
reasonable investigation would not have disclosed the pertinent information before
the limitation date, use the second option for question 2. If both delayed discovery
and nondiscovery despite reasonable investigation are at issue, use both options and
renumber them as question 2 and question 3.
The date to be inserted throughout is the applicable limitation period before the
filing date. For example, if the limitation period is two years and the filing date is
August 31, 2007, the date is August 31, 2005.
In question 1, “claimed harm” refers to all of the elements of the cause of action,
which must have occurred before the cause of action accrues and the limitation
period begins. (Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1018,
1029 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 661].) In some cases, it may be necessary to modify this term
to refer to specific facts that give rise to the cause of action.
The first option for question 2 may be modified to refer to specific facts that the
plaintiff may have known.
VF-410 NEGLIGENCE
426
© Judicial Council of California.
