O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
311 F.3d 1139 (2002)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
In 1997, 52 individuals who resided in the San Fernando Valley of Southern California (residents) (plaintiffs) sued Boeing North American, Inc. (Boeing) (defendant), alleging that hazardous substances released from the Rocketdyne nuclear and rocket testing facilities caused the residents to develop a variety of cancers and other illnesses. All the residents had learned of their diagnoses more than one year before filing suit. Boeing had owned and operated the Rocketdyne facilities for more than 50 years, and the residents alleged that testing at the facilities had involved radioactive contaminants and nonradioactive hazardous chemicals. The residents alleged that they had discovered their claims on September 11, 1997, when an epidemiological study was released by the University of California that concluded Rocketdyne employees were at an increased risk of cancer. The residents alleged state-law tort claims of negligence, negligence per se, and strict liability. In 1999, Boeing filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that California’s one-year statute of limitations barred the residents’ state-law tort claims. California’s statute of limitations required that a plaintiff has one year from the date of injury to bring a personal injury or wrongful-death claim. The district court granted Boeing’s motion. The residents appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Paez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.