The E-Scooter Injury and the Two-Year Clock
Amara, a 34-year-old delivery rider, was struck by a city bus on March 3, 2023, while crossing at a marked crosswalk. She suffered a fractured wrist and a mild concussion, missed six weeks of work, and incurred $9,400 in medical bills. The city's bus operator is a municipal authority. Amara's lawyer sent a notice of claim to the city on April 10, 2023, but the city never responded. On May 1, 2025, Amara filed suit in the state trial court. The city moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the claim is barred by a two-year statute of limitations, and (2) Amara failed to exhaust the required pre-suit administrative review, which the city says must be completed before filing. The jurisdiction's tort claims act requires written notice within 180 days of injury and gives the agency 90 days to respond before suit may be filed. Amara's counsel argues the notice tolled the limitations period and that the city's silence waived the exhaustion requirement.
1. Does the two-year statute of limitations bar Amara's claim? Explain how notice and tolling interact with the limitations period.
Read the worked answer
The limitations analysis turns on when the clock started and whether it was paused, not merely on the calendar gap.
- The injury occurred March 3, 2023. A two-year period would ordinarily expire March 3, 2025.
- Amara filed May 1, 2025 - roughly two months late on its face.
- However, the tort claims act required notice within 180 days (by about August 30, 2023). Amara gave notice April 10, 2023, which is timely.
- The key question is whether the act's 90-day response window tolls the limitations period. Many tort claims acts provide that the limitations period is tolled while the agency reviews the claim. If the 90 days from April 10 (ending around July 9, 2023) is excluded, the effective deadline shifts to about September 2025, making the May 1, 2025 filing timely.
Caveat: tolling is a matter of the specific statute. If the act contains no tolling clause, the claim is time-barred despite timely notice, and Amara must argue equitable tolling (e.g., the city's failure to respond misled her). A court would likely reject equitable tolling where counsel knew of the deadline. The stronger argument is statutory tolling during the agency's review period.
2. Did Amara fail to exhaust administrative remedies? Analyze whether the city's silence constitutes waiver or satisfies the exhaustion requirement.
Read the worked answer
Exhaustion here is a procedural precondition, and the outcome depends on what the statute says happens when the agency does nothing.
- The requirement: The act requires written notice and a 90-day agency response period before suit. Amara gave notice April 10, 2023.
- The 90-day window: It ran to roughly July 9, 2023. The city never responded.
- Statutory default: Most tort claims acts provide that if the agency fails to act within the response period, the claimant may treat the claim as denied and proceed to court. Under that reading, Amara satisfied exhaustion - she waited well beyond 90 days before filing in May 2025.
- Waiver argument: The city's silence does not typically waive the requirement; rather, the statute converts silence into a deemed denial. Amara should not rely on "waiver" but on the deemed-denial provision.
Conclusion: Amara likely exhausted, because she gave timely notice and waited far past the response window. The city's motion should fail on exhaustion, though the limitations issue remains the closer question and depends on the tolling clause.