to prior owners where injury was open, obvious, known and consented to by the prior owners). The plaintiffs now seeking damages from this court all purchased their property from previous owners who had absolutely no knowledge of the contamination on their property. Since these prior owners received full value at the time the plaintiffs made their purchases, they suffered no harm as a result of the undiscovered contamination. If the issue before the court involved the statute of limitations, it would be easy to conclude that these causes of action did not “accrue” while the previous owners held title to the property, since the prior owners did not know, and could not reasonably have known, of the existence of their injury. See Allied Corp. v. Frola, 730 F.Supp. 626, 632 (D.N.J.1990) (<HOLDING>). Defendant, of course, is not arguing that
holding that in an environmental contamination ease a cause of action accrues  when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of his or her cause of action and of the identity of a party or parties who may be responsible for the injury holding that  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury holding that a federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the existence of and source of the injury not when the potential claimant knows or should know that the injury constitutes a legal wrong holding that a  1983 claim generally accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action  holding that a  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury