Dorris v. McClanahan

DORRIS, Gary Plaintiff-Appellant, McCLANAHAN,

Darrell

Defendant-Respondent.

No. 68502.

Supreme Court of

En Banc.

March Pleban, Louis,

C. John plaintiff- St. appellant.

Mary Fitzgerald, Eugene Buckley, K. St. Louis, defendant-respondent. HIGGINS, Chief Justice. Dorris,

Gary resident, appeals against a verdict directed him at the close of his case in his suit for suffered in an collision in automobile Illinois. The trial court ruled that because the Illinois personal plaintiff’s would have barred suit in section 516.190 RSMo appeals court of affirmed verdict, the directed and this Court trans- effect, ferred the case to determine the any, of the recent case of St. Luke’s

1986). Reversed and remanded. 14, 1977, August On Darrell McClana- han, Gary girls Dorris passengers, drove a truck from Missouri to County, Madison Illinois. McClanahan and Dorris entered state with the purchase beer and then return to their home state of Missouri. inWhile and about three miles from the Missouri border, collided truck automo- parked Highway bile on Interstate years later, nearly June five On alleg- Dorris filed suit McClanahan ing injuries negli- caused McClanahan’s gence operation in the of the truck. provides: Section 516.190 cause, the state has been enforcement of Whenever cause action state, processes laws the which lends its courts and the say to originat- it has the how territory country or in which ed, may processes be used. complete shall defense and when those said bar thereon, any the forum controls action Hence the law of respect to limitations. the courts this state. cause of requires

Illinois statute that a “origi The of action did cause personal injury be filed within action for meaning of the sec nate” in years after the cause accrues. Ill.Rev. two 516.190, though parties are tion even both Start. Ch. the were on parties Missouri residents and “Originat day’s into Illinois. excursion Appellant argues the of action cause borrowing ed” statute means as used the “originate” in the did not Illinois because v. Broadcast “accrued.” Schnabel trip only day’s into Illinois excursion Taft Inc., Co., (Mo.App. ing passengers intended to liquor for the 516.100, states Section Alternatively, ar- return to Missouri. purposes of 516.100 to that for the gues minor Missouri that he was a under of action accrues “when the cause law on the date of the collision and resulting damage therefrom sus the operates section to borrow the two capable tained and is ascertainment.” year of limitation from Mis- statute that the collision oc dispute is There is souri tolls the statute until the 516.170, RSMo 1986. curred in Illinois. removed. § Lilly In In 686 F.2d S.W.2d Eli & Renfroe 1976), (8th Cir.1982), court suit was filed one 642 the federal dis resident another Missouri issue under Missouri cases. cussed this damages drug resident to recover incurred in an plaintiffs In sued Renfroe, Both damages automobile collision Illinois. company to for sustained recover trip and defendant were on exposure of in to DES. as a result útero begin which was intended to and end plaintiffs The maintained that borrow The Illinois statute ing 516.190 should statute section for personal inju- that actions applied cause of because their ries must after be filed within two sale originated in Missouri. The action the cause of action accrued. The suit was drug expo of the as well as distribution than Missouri; more after auto- plaintiffs sure occurred The trial mobile collision. court dismissed however, were their cancerous conditions affirmed the dis- this Court much later when the until discovered RSMo, Citing missal. section deny in other states. plaintiffs resided borrowing Court held that claim, court cited ing plaintiffs’ made the Illinois statute limita- states that a cause of which section 516.100 purposes tion a of the Missouri statute plaintiff has sus action accrues when case and thus barred the action. damage capable of ascertain some tained noted that ment. court case, Similarly, the Missouri developed and “became the cancer borrowing lature has enacted ascertainment," that the cause capable of ques- precludes a conflict of laws law. under Missouri accrued In Devine v. tions and bars the action. correctly Therefore, con the court at 646. Rook, (Mo.App.1958), “originated” of action the cause cluded that stated: court plaintiffs where in the the law of the It is fundamental capable ascertain developed first cancer first place where the Id. at 647. ment. life controls the substantive law came to Burnett, F.2d 1311 cause, owes its McIndoo of the since Cir.1974), applied the Missou (8th the court

existence, and of its exist- the character brought in to an ence, ri place. respect But in Missouri for 516.370; sustained in Illinois. 516.100 to and because bor- parties rowing action were Missouri criteria, falls within these residents agreed togeth- who had to travel the Missouri ap- must er in bowling the defendant’s to a car tour- plied preserve plaintiff’s cause of action. nament applying Illinois. section In Strahler v. St. Luke’s case, 516.190 to the explained the court this Court that when foreign juris- a tort occurs in a protect reaffirmed the intent to the minor’s diction, adopts Missouri the statute of limi- right of access to the courts. The Court jurisdiction. tations of that Id. at stated that the of section Both “preserve Mclndoo and follow 516.170 must the cause of action Renfroe precedent court this enunciated in safeguard for a minor and con- minor’s 209, sup stitutionally guaranteed right of access to port continuing validity. its Strahler, In statutory courts....” period limitation contained in Appellant argues also that Kennedy v. RSMo was held to be unconstitutional Dixon, 1969), applied Mo.Const., to minors under art. may to case. this In Kenne 1, 14, was, therefore, found constitu- dy this Court abandoned the lex loci delicti tionally In infirm. ex State rel. Cardinal adopted rule and section 145 of Restate Hospital Glennon Memorial Children ment 2d on Conflict of Laws. Because the S.W.2d legislature preempts analysis Missouri an right this noted “[t]he significant of 2d Restatement in contacts access to the courts is said to to trace back case, Kennedy this inapplicable. Magna part Charta” and is a first Trzecki, 532 S.W.2d at 211. right petition amendment to govern- Appellant argues alternatively that ment. at 110. if the Illinois statute of limitations Respondent argues the proper that con- is borrowed it was plaintiff tolled because struction of the statute reveals that required was not bring to his action under plaintiff bring entitled a cause age of twenty-one. law before the and, of action within the Plaintiff on June lawsuit thus, inapplicable. section 516.170 is Re- years following within two his twenty-first Rook, spondent cites dicta in Devine v. birthday. support argument ap that statute is “not pellant cites section bodily setting,” wrenched out of its own pertinent which states in part: must but be taken the case law any person bring If entitled to an companion which construes it and its stat- in sections 516.100 specified, to 516.370 First, point. ute. Devine is not the time the cause of action accrued plaintiff of minor issue did not arise age twenty-one be ... within the legislature has Devine. The enacted this ..., person years liberty shall be at protect right specific statute to the minor’s bring respec- such actions within the right. to access to the courts in his own tive times in sections 516.100 to 516.370 Second, interpretation that would render limited after such is removed. tolling provision meaningless where Appellant question thus raises a of statu- pro- 516.190is involved because section tory argues construction. He that if only applied can would vision to bring words “entitled an action in sec- have been otherwise barred. “Entitled to tions 516.100 con- 516.370” must be bring an refers action” the broad harmony legislative intent; strued right to wrong. seek redress for legislature clearly expressed tolling provision can then serve its in protecting rights interest of access preserving has other- up age the courts for children wise barred. enacting statute; the language provision brings Respondent within it all also cites Bur actions Handlin v. permissible chett, (1917), which are by virtue of Mo. S.W. Handlin, Smith, support argument. Corp. (Mo.App. of his plaintiff mal- Appellant suggests, persuasively, sued defendant for medical practice which occurred in Iowa that section 516.170 is was 17 old. Plaintiff exception language rather over brought the action almost four after Simply despite put, rides section 516.190. plain- the tortious conduct occurred. The limitations, other statutes a Missouri tiff filed the action both Missouri and bring his minor can lawsuit within limited dropped Iowa courts and later the Iowa period time after reaches suit. The to the Mis- defendant answer Accordingly, the directed verdict de- alleged plaintiff had souri lawsuit that the reversed and the cause fendant voluntarily dismissed the suit Iowa. manded. addition, pleaded defendant two- Iowa year malpractice statute of limitations on BILLINGS, J., concurs. Iowa action, after that ac- commencement RENDLEN, J., concurs result. brought one tion fails and a new BLACKMAR, J., separate concurs in months, a six the second suit is deemed opinion filed. of the then continuation first. Defendant concluded that since a second was ROBERTSON, J., separate dissents in brought in six of the Iowa within months opinion filed. dismissal, plaintiffs JJ., WELLIVER, and DONNELLY finally terminated in Iowa. Conse- separate dissenting concur in dissent and quently, the Missouri ROBERTSON, opinion of J. construing fully the action as barred quired dismissal of the Missouri lawsuit. BLACKMAR, Judge, concurring. Id., 192 S.W. at 1017. Here residents made a sor- two Missouri distinguishable. Handlin issue of Illinois, intending quickly tie into return minority tolling applicability of Missouri’s They were involved an to Missouri. Further, statute was not before the court. passenger and the sued accident originally by the suit was Iowa damages. driver for interpretation and the of fil- Iowa Dixon, 439 Kennedy v. S.W.2d 173 ing provisions was the issue before the (Mo. factually indistin- which interpretation If court. guishable, that the state in we concluded issue, tolling provisions was at (Indiana) had accident occurred which important aspect those statutes differ an law, applying interest in tort and little counterparts today from their 1917 when had interest. that Missouri a substantial Handlin was decided. In 1909 the apply the Indiana therefore refused We statute made no reference to other statu- required which an enhanced guest tory provisions sections to which its should holding showing negligence. we so applied. be RSMo 1909. The lex rejected the traditional locus delicti today ambiguity lature has removed the purported adopt the “most approach and apply clearly demonstrated its intent to significant approach of Re- contacts” foreign arising juris- the statute cases (Second) of Conflict Laws statement by including brought all dictions actions to 516.370. within section 516.100 argues Respondent appellant also 1976) similar fact situation a special erroneously classifies 516.170 as a presented. We held that the adult exception to sec statute and therefore by reason of 516.190, plaintiff’s claim was barred general Respon tion a statute. statute,” 516.190, “borrowing now notes that 516.190 has in fact been dent of action RSMo because the cause special held to be accident. “originated” place at the particular of a those actions express statutory command arising Alropa in a state. We found an class precluded which application policy by well proper construction of considerations, rejected suggestion I 516.170. concur. origi-

that the should be held to have gov- nated which state ROBERTSON, Judge, dissenting. erning substantive law. I respectfully dissent. The soundness decision has quarrel I majority opin- questioned. Tuchler, been Other States’ ion’s conclusion that the Step Guest Statutes —A Hesitant For- statute of limitations controls in this case. ward, (Spring 15 St. Louis Bar Journal part I company majority opinion, 1969). Dixon, supra, Kennedy should I, when it invokes art. Mo.Const. effect, given possible the broadest 14, allowing proceed Trzecki should not extended1 when the Missouri after it been fully has barred governing capable statutes are of a con- laws Illinois. struction which with policy better accords considerations. 1986, provides Section RSMo “[wjhenever cause present plaintiff of action has was a minor at the accident, of the laws of time under both Missouri’s originated, ... and Illinois’ A said bar shall be primary law. state has thereon, protecting complete any interest in defense to minor citizens in access their to its courts. the courts of this state.” St. Hospital, 706 Luke’s banc Section 516.190 bars action in Missouri Section states of action is expressly person fully by that a who was a minor at barred the laws of the state in Here, the time his or her cause of originated. action accrued which the action liberty” bring “shall an action “originating” state is Illinois. Schnabel v. after the of is disability minority removed. Broadcasting 525 S.W.2d 819 Taft express permission This controls. It is of (Mo.App.1975); Dzur v. significance per- Thus, that law allows a (Mo.App.1983). age son of 18 or over to sue without next pertinent inquiry is wheth- under 516.190 § (Section 507.115, 1986). friend.2 er of action “has been tolling provisions The of 516.170continue § fully by [foreign] the laws of the age until 21. peri- The borrowed limitation state.” expressly od of is by 516.190 tolled § 83, para. (1981)1pro- Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. plaintiff 516.170 for a is under who § bring if plaintiff vides entitled to that age of 21. person action for It makes no difference that Missouri age when is within the of his period would borrow the Illinois limitation accrues, bring he must tolling subject provisions. Illinois An disability action after the “fully is action barred” under Illinois minority is removed. Plaintiff celebrat- by if the law tolled eighteenth August birthday ed his on holding that law. Such a is not inconsist- 1977, days sixteen after the accident. On application ent 516.170 for with of § longer was no a minor under date minor, protection of Missouri in ac- law; Illinois the Illinois statute limita- express terms. cordance August to run. On began tions two-year period of limitations estab- principal opinion sup- The result of the By by reason, policy, authority expired. Illinois ported by as lished law Dixon, only glad Kennedy I too 18. It is manifest from su- 1. As a matter of fact would be holding appropriate pra, appropriate reconsider the if an case that Missouri is the most forum presented. were plaintiff this this defendant. for a suit Judge pertinence not see Robert- 2. I do 110, para. currently Repealed, Ch. 1. Ill.Rev.Stat. plaintiff observation could sue in son’s 13-215 name in Illinois as soon he reached his own date, suit; opinion dismisses lan- majority not filed his had Yet, the guage as dicta. issue mere cause of barred under “whether, [borrowing a Devine plain, unambiguous law. Under limitations], we take statute of 516.190, plaintiffs language cause of of § tolling [foreign] it the as well. is barred of limita- or whether we take the [statute language plain Where of a statute is tolling by such alone and uninhibited tions] meaning, one there is no admits of but at 935. The cited statute.” Springs room for Blue Bowl construction. dicta, being language, far from Spradling, of law answer court’s conclusion presented. question majority opinion, and the appellant, contemplated legislature That the argue must be 516.190 harmonized § only appli- our courts would borrow expressed legislative intent limitations, perti- also cable provides 516.170 that: 516.170. Section tolling provisions is evidenced nent bring entitled to person legislative 516.170and 516.- histories of §§ specified, 516.100 to 516.370 appli- A an otherwise at the the cause of action accrued time limitations for minors has cable twenty-one since at within the in Missouri least ... law 510-1, Mo.1825, p. years, persons 1825. Laws of such shall be at liber- ... unchanged remained Section 516.190 has ty bring actions within the re- adoption in 1899. since initial spective times sections 516.100to 516.- construction, RSMo 1899. As a matter 370 limited after such is re- assuming arguendo that construction is moved. warranted, presumed that it must be actions, In the of limitations of it is area legislature, amended which last accepted rule that generally when bor- of not has been and is aware rowing the statute of limitations of a for- plain language of extant eign state, applicable tolling provision Devine, since but also of that state is borrowed as well. E. Scoles 932. Laws, L.Ed., and P. Hay, Conflict of 3.11 distinguish Devine and attempt In an (1984); Davis, Liability Tort and the Stat- 114, Burchett, 270 Mo. Handlin v. Limitation, 171, utes of 33 Mo.L.Rev. (1917), majority turns to S.W. (1968); (1959).2 A.L.R.2d This St. Luke’s legal tenet summarized Devine v. as an affir- Book, (Mo.App.1958), protect intent to mation this Court’s wherein the court stated that: right to the courts his minor’s of access borrowing effect of the statute [t]he right. own procedural not to extend the of one law protected zealously This Court has another, state into but right of “ac- constitutionally guaranteed (spe- makes adopts state own rel. ex Cardinal cess courts.” State limitations) cial Hospital Children Glennon Memorial But is So other. borrowed, bodily it is not wrenched out case, 1979); rais- This Strahler. setting, of its taken own Appel- the courts. es no issue of access to it are court decisions of own brought this action in his lant could have it, interpret apply right own in the courts companion birthday. He eighteenth statutes which limit and his Illinois. More- courts of had access to the operation. strict its applicable by made statute borrowing 2. Cf. v. Missouri Kansas-Texas R. Turner easily distinguish- (1940), Turner is statute. 346 Mo. wherein this the Kansas the fact that Court that the Missouri able found pleaded case. operate conjunction in that should with the Kansas over, appellant had access to the courts of 1986,3 Under

appellant could this action in interest, party own name as the real eighteen.

once he reached the

Finally, I am agree unable to

majority opinion’s conclusion protect

lature enacted 516.170 “to a mi-

nor’s to access to the courts in his right,” apparently regard

own without plain language or similar all,

statutory enactments. After was the Assembly’s disregard

General for minor’s

right of access to prompted the courts that majority portion of this declare the legislature’s statute of limitations malpractice

for medical unconstitutional in

Strahler.

Because I believe cause is ful-

ly and, barred in Illinois therefore

barred in Missouri under I dis-

sent. ZIMMERMAN, al.,

Vera Brewer et

Plaintiffs-Appellants, PREUSS, al., Leonard T. Cox, Clinton, Scott, et Robert L. Richard M. Defendants-Respondents. Lamar, plaintiffs-appellants. Smith,

No. 68738. Ralph Murphy, E. Edward J. But- ler, defendants-respondents. Missouri, Supreme En Banc. DONNELLY, Judge. March 1987. This is a contest. It will involves Zimmerman,

estate Arthur G. a resident County, Bates who died March 10, 1985. 10,1984, February

A will dated named as widow, primary Zim- beneficiaries Vera merman, (Alma stepchildren three Cameron, Swope Swope). Frank Eddie $10,000 bequeathed It also to Homer and Bough. Goldie This will was submitted 1976, p. S.B. Laws of Missouri

Case Details

Case Name: Dorris v. McClanahan

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Mar 17, 1987

Citation: 725 S.W.2d 870

Docket Number: 68502

Court Abbreviation: Mo.