The danger of interpreting a statute of limitations

Statutes of limitations are drastic laws because their intention is to prevent an injured person from obtaining a remedy if the person waits "too long." Because these laws are drastic, the courts have to dictate what should happen under specific circumstances. In other words, the statute that you read isn't necessarily the law you get.

That can be a good thing or a bad thing. Here are some examples of anomolies that could hurt you:

• In Oklahoma, there is a dog bite statute that creates strict liability for a first bite. The statute of limitations for statutory liabilities is 3 years. A person without experience naturally would conclude that he has 3 years to file a case in court. However, he doesn't! Since the general statute of limitations for personal injuries of all sorts is only two years, it has been held that a dog bite victim has only two years to file a case.
• In Arizona, the general statute of limitations for personal injuries is two years. A dog bite victim would assume that he could file his case within two years, but he would be wrong. Since statutory actions have to be filed within one year in Arizona, a dog bite victim is granted only one year.

As you can see, the same principle leads to different conclusions in different states. For that reason, a lawyer must be consulted for the purpose of determining the correct period of limitations in any particular case.