Carter v. Haygood

Summary

The court held that the plaintiffs' medical-malpractice claims were timely because the dentist's continuing treatment, assurances that he could correct the problems, and efforts to remedy them suspended prescription under the third category of contra non valentem. The court also held that the plaintiffs reasonably relied on those assurances and that the court of appeal improperly reversed the trial court's liability determination based on the locality of an expert's practice when no contemporaneous objection had been made. It therefore reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the district court's judgment in its entirety.