Legal Ramblings
[ Wednesday, September 17, 2003 (1:53 PM) ] ( link )
Time dilation and the statute of limitations: As every budding law student and actual lawyer knows, statutes of limitations constrain the amount of time you can wait before bringing a cause of action after it first arises. For instance, if somebody tortiously injures you, you may have anywhere from one to seven years to bring suit; afterward, you'll be barred from suing the tortfeasor, regardless of the merits of your original claim.
As every budding physics student and actual physicist knows, the constant speed of light (as posited in the theory of special relativity) results in the phenomenon of time dilation, whereby (roughly speaking) the faster you go, the slower time seems to pass for you as measured by somebody in another, slower reference frame. Thus, for example, to take the Twin (Non)Paradox, suppose that a pair of twins live together on Earth. They synchronize their watches, then one of them goes on a space ship traveling at .999 the speed of light, out to some distant point and back. When the traveling twin returns, he will only have aged about 5 years (let's say); the Earth-bound twin, however, will be considerably, considerably older.
Ok, now let's suppose that we actually develop near-light-speed space travel, and let's suppose that Party A stays on Earth and Party B goes traveling on a super-fast space ship. Here's my question: given that there is a cause of action between Party A and Party B, should the statute of limitations run according to Party A's clock, or Party B's clock? If it runs according to Party A's Earth-bound clock, then Party B could unfairly run the statute of limitations, and avoid litigation, by traveling for a few months in space--and having several years pass on Earth. If it runs according to Party B's space-ship clock, then several decades could pass before Party B is apprehended, and then all the usual policy reasons in favor of a statute of limitations would come into play (the deterioration of evidence, loss of memory, etc.).
I don't expect this to be an important question any time soon. But hey, it's more fun to think about than the equitable doctrine of laches!
|
