Whether the claim accrued before the statute of limitations expired is a question of fact, and is therefore reserved for the fact-finder which in this case was the jury.

▲

toast0 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IMHO, whether (and which) statue of limitations applies is a question of law, whether said time limit has passed is a question of fact. I'd like to read the jury instructions and verdict, but I didn't see a link to them anywhere.

I guess there could be a question of fact in a case where the statues of limitation differ for different injuries, and the factual question is which injury was it.

	▲	granzymes 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are correct that which statute of limitations applies is a question of law. If facts are undisputed, that is the end of the issue. In this case, the facts were disputed, and the jury found for the defendants. The jury instructions are public and the final jury form will be published, likely later this week. I can tell you that the instructions told the jury to decide whether Musk could have brought his case before 2021.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

peterfirefly 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

	▲	mrhottakes 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, that is incorrect.

▲

ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It seems to me like justice should be about right vs wrong and illegal vs legal, and not “did you fill out form 27B/6 on time?” Dismissing a case on these kinds of trivial procedural grounds seems like the court just doesn’t want to do its job.

▲

granzymes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The statute of limitations is not a trivial issue. Defendants have rights just as much as plaintiffs do, and our justice system does not allow plaintiffs to unreasonably delay in bringing their claims.

	▲	bobthepanda 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		there are also practical concerns at play with a statute of limitations, where evidence is more likely to disappear and the trial would've devolved into a he said/she said situation.

▲

dbt00 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If it was wrong in 2019, why did he wait 7 years to do something about it?

The passage of time makes it harder to have a fair trial, as shown by the number of times Elon said I don't know or I don't recall about conversations that would have been recent in 2019 but are now long (or strategically) forgotten.

	▲	dzhiurgis an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Why would you try to sue something that has no chance of being alive?

▲

mrhottakes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bringing claims promptly so they can be adjudicated is vital for justice. What would you think if you were sued for something that happened decades ago when the time to correct it was soon after the instigating event?

▲

brookst 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So you’d be OK if, say, a rental car sued you for putative damage to a car you rented 15 years ago?

Limiting time that an action can be brought is critical to having a fair trial.

▲

danso 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you imagine justice functioning in a system that lacks a statute of limitations?

▲

geodel 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It doesn't seem trivial at all. Allowing to flout procedure specially in case of very rich , powerful people with vast resources at their disposal would feel rewarding further for their cluelessness as if they are not already heavily rewarded by rigged system.

▲

albedoa an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I for one am happy that we have and enforce statutes of limitations. Calling it a kind of "trivial procedural grounds" is wild.

> the court just doesn’t want to do its job.

What do you think its job is.