## Facts

- James Hanley was a security guard employed by Metropolitan Security Service and assigned to a Citizens Bank of Massachusetts branch.
- On the night before the attack, the bank’s alarm sounded and police responded to the branch.
- No bank representative came to the scene, and the police could not get access to the interior to investigate.
- Robbers had entered the bank during the night and remained inside.
- When Hanley entered the bank the next morning to begin work, the robbers ambushed him, disarmed him, beat him, and threatened to kill him, causing serious injuries.
- The perpetrators were later identified as members of the “Hole-in-the-Roof Gang,” known for entering banks at night by cutting through roofs and waiting for employees to arrive in the morning.
- Hanley asserted he first learned during later federal prosecutions of the robbers that police had responded to the alarm but could not enter because no bank representative arrived.
- Hanley sued Citizens on March 14, 2000, alleging negligence in the hiring, training, and supervision of personnel responsible for security and alarm response, including the failure to send someone to the branch when the police were notified of the alarm.

## Issues

1. Whether Hanley’s negligence claim was barred by Massachusetts’ three-year statute of limitations for tort actions.
2. Whether the discovery rule delayed accrual until Hanley learned during the federal proceedings that police had responded to the alarm but were unable to enter because the bank did not send a representative.
3. Whether Hanley alleged any basis for tolling that would make the March 2000 complaint timely.

## Decision

- The Superior Court allowed Citizens’ motion to dismiss.
- The court ruled the action was time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations.
- The court concluded the discovery rule did not postpone accrual until Hanley later learned additional facts about the alarm response; those facts were, at most, further detail supporting a theory he could have investigated earlier.
- Judgment entered dismissing the complaint as untimely.

## Legal Principles

- In Massachusetts, tort claims for personal injury generally must be filed within three years after the cause of action accrues.
- Under the discovery rule, accrual occurs when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that (1) he has been harmed and (2) the harm was caused by another’s conduct that may have been wrongful.
- Accrual is not deferred until the plaintiff learns all supporting facts, identifies the best theory of liability, or obtains confirmation through later proceedings.
- Later-acquired information that merely supplies additional detail about a potential defendant’s negligence does not restart or extend the limitations period absent a recognized tolling ground.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Hanley’s negligence claim because, despite his later discovery during federal prosecutions that police were kept from entering the bank after the alarm due to the bank’s failure to send a representative, Hanley’s claim accrued no later than when he was assaulted in 1990 (or when a reasonable person in his position would have investigated potential security-related fault), making his March 2000 filing outside the three-year limitations period.


Hanley v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 2001 WL 717106 (2001)