## Facts

- Christine M. Jolly alleged injuries from in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) ingested by her mother during pregnancy.
- Jolly was born in 1951.
- In 1972, she learned her mother had taken DES and that “DES daughters” could suffer injuries; a UCLA clinic diagnosed her with adenosis requiring monitoring.
- In 1976, after an abnormal Pap smear, she underwent a dilation and curettage to remove abnormal tissue.
- In 1978, she underwent a complete hysterectomy and partial vaginectomy to remove malignancy.
- By 1972, and no later than the time of her later surgeries, Jolly suspected her condition was related to DES exposure.
- Jolly could not identify the specific DES manufacturer because records and witnesses were unavailable.
- In 1980, the California Supreme Court decided *Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories*, permitting market-share liability in DES cases where the specific manufacturer cannot be identified.
- Less than one year after *Sindell*, Jolly sued multiple DES manufacturers asserting negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and fraud, relying on market-share liability.
- Defendants obtained summary judgment on the ground the action was barred by the one-year personal injury limitations period then set by California Code of Civil Procedure § 340(3).

## Issues

1. Under California’s discovery rule, may a plaintiff who suspects injury from a defective drug delay filing until she discovers specific facts establishing manufacturers’ wrongful conduct?
2. Can a claim otherwise barred by the statute of limitations be revived by the later adoption of market-share liability in *Sindell*?
3. Did the putative class action proceedings in *Sindell* toll the statute of limitations for Jolly’s individual personal injury action until class certification was denied?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held the action was time-barred because accrual occurred when Jolly suspected or should have suspected that her injuries were caused by wrongdoing, not when she obtained specific evidence of wrongful conduct or a more favorable theory of proof.
- The court held *Sindell* did not create a new cause of action and did not revive claims already barred by the statute of limitations.
- The court held the *Sindell* class action did not toll limitations for Jolly’s individual damages claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under the discovery rule, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and that it was caused by wrongdoing; full knowledge of the facts or identification of a particular defendant is not required.
- Once on inquiry notice, a plaintiff must reasonably investigate and is charged with knowledge that such an investigation would reveal.
- Uncertainty about the availability of a successful theory of liability, or later doctrinal developments improving prospects of proof, does not postpone accrual or restart the limitations period.
- Market-share liability is a theory addressing proof of causation within existing tort claims; it does not, by itself, revive time-barred claims.
- Class-action tolling applies only where the earlier class action gives defendants fair notice of the substantive claims and the nature of the potential plaintiffs; a putative class proceeding that is not coextensive with later individual personal injury damages claims does not toll limitations for those claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that Jolly’s DES claims accrued when she suspected her injuries were caused by wrongdoing, and neither the later recognition of market-share liability nor the earlier DES class action proceedings tolled or revived her otherwise time-barred personal injury action.


Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103 (Cal. 1988)