Statute of Limitations Barred Suit Against Center's Owner

Facts: A supermarket customer fell and was injured in the parking lot at the shopping center. She sued the tenant, claiming that the fall occurred because of a defective and dangerous condition there. The tenant notified the customer that the center’s owner was responsible for the lot’s upkeep. It provided the customer with the lease that identified the owner and stated that it was responsible for the center’s common area, including the parking lot.

After the one-year anniversary of the incident, the customer asked a trial court to amend her complaint to add the owner as an additional defendant. The owner asked the court to dismiss the claim because the customer failed to name it as a defendant within one year of the alleged fall—exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. According to the customer, the statute of limitations had not run because she supposedly had not obtained the name of the owner of the shopping center until after filing her initial complaint. (She did not say that the tenant had supplied her within a year of the accident the name of the owner.)

The trial court determined that the customer was barred from adding the owner because of the statute of limitations. The trial court also granted the tenant’s request for a judgment in its favor without a trial. The customer appealed.

Decision: A Kentucky appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision.

Reasoning: The customer contended that Kentucky case law allowed the tolling of the statute of limitations—that is, the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by the statute of limitations—in personal injury cases when it becomes apparent that another party must be added. But that discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations in order for an injured plaintiff to discover the identity of the alleged wrongdoer—here, the owner—unless there is fraudulent concealment or a misrepresentation by the defendant of his role in causing the plaintiff’s injuries, noted the appeals court.

Additionally, the customer was notified of the owner’s name and its obligation to maintain the parking lot prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The customer also failed to present evidence establishing that the tenant had a duty towards her. In fact, the lease specifically stated that the tenant had no responsibility to keep the parking lot or the common area in good repair.

• Landel v. Kroger Co., January 2015