509 N.E.2d 1276 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1986
Plaintiff, Joseph Cox, filed a complaint on February 10, 1986 with the Court of Claims of Ohio naming as defendant the Ohio Parole Commission *217 ("commission"). Plaintiff alleged that he was attacked with a knife during a robbery by Donald Buck, who had been paroled by the commission. Previously, on December 9, 1985, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Claims and named Donald Buck and the members of the commission as defendants.
The Court of Claims, in its prescreening entry, dismissed plaintiff's initial complaint, pursuant to LCCR 15(B) and R.C.
Plaintiff claims that his cause of action was tolled by R.C.
Plaintiff also contends that his cause of action against the commission is stayed pursuant to R.C.
R.C.
"In an action commenced, or attempted to be commenced, * * * if the plaintiff fails otherwise than upon the merits, and the time limited for the commencement of such action at the date of * * * failure has expired, the plaintiff * * * may commence a new action within one year after such date. * * *"
R.C.
In Reese, the court wrote as follows:
"This statute, the savings statute, is not a statute of limitations. Neither is R.C.
Moreover, the savings statute is remedial in nature and is to be given a liberal construction. See Cero Realty Corp. v.American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. (1960),
The commission states that the savings statute does not apply because the parties in the former action and present action are not the same. See Children's Hospital v. Dept. of Public Welfare
(1982),
Thus, the savings statute is applicable in this case. Although the commission was not named as a defendant in the first case, it is apparent that an action was "attempted to be commenced" against the commission under R.C.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is reversed and remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
STRAUSBAUGH AND MCCORMAC, JJ., concur. *219