Issue: Statute of Limitations in a wrongful death claim in New jersey.
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure, Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Statute of limitations; Wrongful death cases |
| Jurisdiction: | New Jersey |
| Cited Cases: | 256 N.J. 296; 472 U.S. 511; 457 U.S. 731 |
| Cited Statutes: | N.J. R. App. P. 2:2-2(b) |
| Date: | 07/01/2001 |
Historically, wrongful death claims were unknown at common law. See La Faye v. Joni, 166 N.J. 412, 421-22 (2001). Thus, the limitations period stated in New Jersey’s wrongful death statute is known as a "substantive" statute of limitations which is "’not a statute of limitations in the ordinary or general sense’" at all. Negrom v. Llarena, 256 N.J. 296, 300 (1998) (citing Elridge v. Philadelphia & Reading R.R. Co., 83 N.J.L. 463, 465 (E & A 1912)). In Negron this Court explained the significance of the distinction between a "substantive" statute of limitations and ordinary ones.
A substantive statute of limitations can be distinguished from an ordinary or "procedural" statute of limitations. Procedural statutes of limitations govern general causes of action, such as torts and contracts. The running of a procedural statute of limitations bars only the remedy, not the right. In contrast, substantive statutes of limitations restrict statutory causes of action that did not exist at common law. A substantive statute of limitations, as a condition precedent to bringing suit, bars not only the remedy, but also the right itself.
Negron, 156 N.J. at 300-01 (citations omitted).
Thus, in the absence of compliance with the limitations period contained in a substantive statute, as modified by applicable tolling principles, if any, a plaintiff simply has no right upon which to sue at all. From this, the converse also should follow: where the plaintiff has no substantive right upon which to sue the defendant should […]