TIMOTHY E LOEHR SR V WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
TIMOTHY E. LOEHR, SR.,
UNPUBLISHED
October 21, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 248490
Delta Circuit Court
LC No. 02-016430-NO
WISCONSIN CENTRAL, LTD., and
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY CO.,
Defendants,
and
SAULT STE. MARIE BRIDGE CO.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company (“SSAM”) appeals by leave granted from
an order of the circuit court denying partial summary disposition. SSAM had sought summary
disposition on the basis that plaintiff’s claim concerning knee injuries allegedly sustained while
employed by SSAM was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse and remand.
Defendant SSAM’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court did not apply the
correct law in determining when the statute of limitations accrued in this case. We agree. This
Court reviews a trial court’s grant or denial of summary disposition under a de novo standard.
Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998).
45 USC 56 provides that claims brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act
(FELA), 45 USC 51 et seq., must be commenced within three years from the day the cause of
action accrued. The trial court relied on Vaughan v Grand Trunk W R Co, 153 Mich App 575;
396 NW2d 440 (1986), which concluded that the continuing tort rule governed the accrual of the
statute of limitations in such cases. Id. at 578. Under this rule, the cause of action accrued only
at such time as the employer ceased its ongoing tortious conduct. Id.
Recently, however, this Court rejected the reasoning of Vaughan. In Hughes v Lake
Superior & I R Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 246260, issued August 24,
-1-
2004), this Court held that the proper standard for determining the accrual of FELA claims,
including those claims based on a theory of negligent assignment, is the discovery rule. Id. at
slip op p 7. In the employment context, “[t]he relevant inquiry under the discovery rule is when
the plaintiff knew or should have known that there was a potential causal connection between his
employment and his injury, not when he knew that the repetitive exposure to the cause was the
specific cause of that injury.” Id.
In the present case, there is evidence that plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the
existence and cause of his knee injury as early as 1985, and possibly as early as 1981. Thus, his
cause of action under FELA accrued at the latest in 1985. Hughes, supra. However, plaintiff did
not file his claim under FELA until January 2002. Accordingly, pursuant to 45 USC 56,
plaintiff’s claim for his knee injuries was barred by the statute of limitations. As a result,
summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was appropriate as to plaintiff’s claim against
SSAM.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting SSAM summary disposition under
MCR 2.116(C)(7). We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
