## Facts

- Patricia Raymond used C-Quens, an oral contraceptive manufactured and distributed by Eli Lilly & Co.
- She suffered optic-nerve hemorrhages and became legally blind; the physical injury occurred in 1968.
- A federal court found she did not know, and had no reason to know, of a potential claim against Eli Lilly until sometime in 1970 or 1971.
- On February 26, 1975, Patricia Raymond filed a personal-injury action; her husband, Arthur Raymond, sought consequential damages.
- Eli Lilly removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and argued New Hampshire’s six-year limitations period for personal actions (RSA 508:4) barred the claims because suit was filed more than six years after the 1968 injury.
- The federal district court denied summary judgment, applying a discovery rule, and the First Circuit certified to the New Hampshire Supreme Court whether that rule applied to drug-caused injuries where the causal link was not discoverable for several years.

## Issues

1. Whether New Hampshire’s discovery rule delays accrual under RSA 508:4 in a drug-injury case when a reasonably diligent plaintiff did not learn of the possible causal connection between the drug and the injury until years after the injury occurred.
2. Whether accrual under the discovery rule requires discovery (actual or constructive) of both the injury and its possible causal connection to the defendant’s conduct.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court answered the certified question yes.
- The court held that a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should discover, both that the plaintiff has been injured and that the injury may have been caused by the defendant’s conduct.
- The court extended the discovery rule beyond foreign-object medical malpractice to drug-related injuries where the causal relationship may not be known when the injury occurs.
- The ruling supported the federal court’s denial of statute-of-limitations summary judgment if the factfinder accepted the asserted 1970–71 discovery timeframe.

## Legal Principles

- Under RSA 508:4, accrual occurs when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should discover, (1) the injury and (2) that the injury may have been caused by the defendant’s conduct.
- The discovery rule applies when injury and knowledge of causation are not simultaneous, including latent or medically complex product-related injuries.
- Statutes of limitations balance repose against fairness; it is improper to bar claims before a reasonably diligent plaintiff could be expected to know they exist.

## Conclusion

New Hampshire adopted a general discovery rule for personal injury actions: the limitations period begins only when a reasonably diligent plaintiff knows or should know both of the injury and that it may be attributable to the defendant, including in drug-related product cases where causation is not immediately apparent.


Raymond v. Eli Lilly & Co., 117 N.H. 164, 371 A.2d 170 (1977)