2026 Winning Essay

Balancing Timely Lawsuits With Fair Access to Justice

Statutes of limitations play an important role in personal injury law, but they do more than protect defendants from frivolous lawsuits. A deadline alone cannot determine whether a claim has merit. It only determines how much time someone has to file it. As a result, even a person with serious injuries and strong evidence can lose the opportunity to seek compensation by filing too late. In my opinion, statutes of limitations are necessary because they encourage injured individuals to act promptly and protect defendants from claims that are brought years after an accident. However, there should be limited exceptions for injuries that could not reasonably have been discovered within the filing period. Removing the deadline from all cases involving bodily harm would place an unfair burden on defendants, but applying it too strictly could also prevent deserving plaintiffs from receiving justice.

Florida generally gives a person two years to file a negligence claim. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(a) (2025). Before House Bill 837 took effect on March 24, 2023, plaintiffs had four years to file these claims. Both The Florida Bar News and the American Bar Association reported that the law shortened the deadline for general negligence claims while leaving longer filing periods for certain other claims, including some involving defective products. This difference shows that the same deadline may not be appropriate for every type of injury. Some injuries and their causes are immediately clear, while others may take much longer to discover.

One of the strongest reasons to keep a statute of limitations is that evidence becomes less reliable as time passes. Witnesses may forget important details, documents can be lost, surveillance footage may be deleted, and physical evidence can disappear. It would be difficult for a defendant to fairly respond to a claim years after an accident if the evidence needed to explain what happened is no longer available. The United States Supreme Court recognized this concern in Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Co., 380 U.S. 424, 428 (1965). The Court explained that statutes of limitations protect against older claims brought after evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. These problems can make a fair trial difficult even when the plaintiff genuinely believes the claim is valid.

A defined deadline also gives individuals and businesses a reasonable degree of finality. Without one, a driver, property owner, employer, or small business could face the possibility of a lawsuit indefinitely. Insurance records and financial reserves would have to be maintained for an unlimited period, and courts could be required to decide cases based on incomplete evidence. Filing deadlines also encourages injured people to investigate their claims, obtain legal advice, and notify the opposing party while the facts remain relatively clear. For these reasons, removing the statute of limitations from every case involving bodily harm would go too far.

Nevertheless, a strict rule based only on the date of an accident can be unfair because not every injury is immediately apparent. Some injuries develop gradually or initially appear minor. A person exposed to a harmful substance, given a defective medical device, or suffering internal damage may not discover the seriousness or cause of the condition until much later. An individual should not lose the right to bring a claim before having a reasonable opportunity to know that a legally compensable injury exists. The law should distinguish between plaintiffs who ignore known injuries and plaintiffs who could not reasonably have discovered their injuries despite acting responsibly.

Florida law already uses discovery-based rules in selected circumstances. For example, professional malpractice claims generally run from the time the claim is discovered or should have been discovered through due diligence. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(b) (2025). Medical malpractice law similarly incorporates discovery principles, although it also imposes an outer limit on most claims. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(c) (2025). These provisions offer a useful model for balancing the rights of both parties.

I would preserve the two-year period for ordinary negligence cases involving injuries that are immediately known. However, for latent bodily injuries, the two years should begin when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, both the injury and its probable connection to the defendant’s conduct. This standard would remain objective. A plaintiff could not extend the deadline simply by claiming personal ignorance. Courts would examine medical records, symptoms, diagnoses, and the steps the plaintiff took to investigate the condition. Once a reasonable person would have recognized the injury and its likely cause, the filing period would begin.

This discovery rule should be paired with an outer statute of repose, perhaps seven years after the event, to prevent indefinite liability. Exceptions to that final deadline should be rare and should apply when the defendant fraudulently concealed the danger, misrepresented important facts, or intentionally caused the plaintiff to delay filing. In Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071, 1076–79 (Fla. 2001), the Florida Supreme Court recognized that equitable estoppel may prevent a defendant from relying on a limitations defense when the defendant’s conduct induced the plaintiff to delay legal action. A party should not benefit from a deadline that the party’s own misleading behavior caused the plaintiff to miss.

Any broader discovery rule should be enacted clearly by the legislature instead of applied inconsistently by individual courts. In R.R. v. New Life Community Church of CMA, Inc., 303 So. 3d 916, 923–24 (Fla. 2020), the Florida Supreme Court emphasized that Florida’s statutory framework governs accrual and tolling and that courts cannot simply create additional rules based on their own views of fairness. That decision illustrates why reform should come through legislation that establishes predictable standards for plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys, and judges.

Ultimately, the statute of limitations should serve as a rule of fairness rather than merely a shield from liability. It should protect defendants from claims made so late that a reliable defense is no longer possible, encourage plaintiffs with known injuries to act diligently, and promote the efficient administration of justice. At the same time, it should not deny a remedy to someone who could not reasonably have discovered a serious injury before the deadline expired. Retaining the two-year period, while adopting a limited discovery rule and an appropriate statute of repose, would create the fairest balance. This approach would preserve the finality defendants need without closing the courthouse doors before an injured person has a meaningful opportunity to seek justice.

Works Cited

Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965). United States Supreme Court opinion.

Florida Statutes § 95.031 (2025). Florida Legislature.

Florida Statutes § 95.11 (2025). Florida Legislature.

Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2001). Florida Supreme Court opinion.

McKee, Traci, and Andrew Jackson. “Florida Tort Reform.” American Bar Association, 26 April 2023. American Bar Association article.

“Legislature Passes Comprehensive Tort Legislation.” The Florida Bar News, 24 March 2023. Florida Bar article.

R.R. v. New Life Community Church of CMA, Inc., 303 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 2020). Florida Supreme Court opinion.