it included a discovery provision for latent injuries as a trade-off. 733 So.2d at 204. Barnes clearly decided that where the one-year statute of limitations applied, the claim was filed properly when it was filed within one year of the discovery of the defendant’s negligent conduct. Id. In Barnes, 733 So.2d at 205, this Court thoroughly described the history of the discovery rule at common law and its application to a variety of case types, reviewing cases such as Schiro v. Am.Tobacco Co., 611 So.2d 962, 965 (Miss.1992) (discovery rule as a common law exception), Owens-Ill., Inc. v. Edwards, 573 So.2d 704 (Miss.1990) (discovery rule exists in case of negligence or products liability cause of action involving latent disease), Evans v. Boyle Flying Serv., Inc., 680 So.2d 821 (Miss.1996) (<HOLDING>), Smith v. Sneed, 638 So.2d 1252 (Miss.1994)
holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury holding the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the owning spouse reaches a pay status holding that the statute of limitations for an attorney malpractice suit did not begin to run until the client had suffered some actual damage holding the time period for filling a claim does not begin to run until the claimant judged by the standard of a reasonable person recognizes the nature seriousness and probable compensable character of his injury holding at least under the facts of the case that the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action did not begin to run until the plaintiff secured a specific medical diagnosis