Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 41 > Issue 4 (1943)
Plaintiff, in March, 1934, while in the employ of a manufacturing concern, suffered severe injuries. In September, 1935, he employed the defendant, an attorney, to present and prosecute a claim for compensation. The claim was filed in March, 1937; it was dismissed by the Industrial Commission on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations governing such claims. Apparently the attorney, continuing his efforts on behalf of his client, persuaded the employer to make a voluntary settlement, for the plaintiff alleges that, in May of 1940, he endorsed the employer's check over to the attorney, accepted the attorney's check for a lesser amount and terminated the attorney-client relationship. Early in May, 1941, plaintiff brought this action, claiming negligent delay, on the part of the defendant, amounting to malpractice. The court sustained the defendant's demurrer, and held that this malpractice action was barred by an applicable one-year statute of limitation; this period had begun to run, it was said, as soon as the plaintiff's claim against the employer became stale. Galloway v. Hood, 69 Ohio App. 278, 43 N. E. (2d) 631 (1941).
P. A. L.,
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - MALPRACTICE - ACCRUAL OF ACTION - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol41/iss4/11