Ormа Gates filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to recover damages for allegеd defamation arising from certain statements made by defendant’s employees. The triаl court sustained a motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appeals. The pleadings constitute the only record before this court.
Plaintiff’s petition alleged defendant’s flight requiremеnts required “someone” to accompany her mother, an invalid confined to a wheel chair, on a flight from Kansas City, Missouri, to San Francisco, California.
Plaintiff did not learn of this necessity until just before departure time and, as a result, was not prepared for travеl, but did accompany her mother on the flight. Plaintiff alleged that on November 16, 1968, in San Francisco, California, defendant’s agents made certain slanderpus statements imputing to plаintiff, a married female, a want of chastity. Plaintiff pleaded that these statements werе made in the presence and hearing of defendant’s employees and other persons while plaintiff prepared to board defendant’s plane back to Kansas City.
Plaintiff filed her petition on July 24, 1970, one year and eight months after the alleged injuries were sustained.
Defendant filеd answer denying plaintiff’s allegations and subséquently filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the provisions of Section 516.190 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. The trial court sustаined defendant’s motion.
Although far from clearly expressed, it is apparently plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s insistence that her mother be accompanied on the flight to California was negligence, the negligence being found in requiring her to accompany her mother without adequate preparation which was the proximate cause of the alleged slanderous statements. The negligence is thus negligence oсcurring within the State of Missouri and therefore, the Missouri Statute of Limitations, Section 516.140 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., applies, and the action was timely filed within the two-year period of such statute. The difficulty with thе plaintiff’s position is that the petition does not allege negligence on the pаrt of the defendant in requiring the plaintiff to accompany her mother. Plaintiff does not аllege any facts that would constitute negligence on the part of the defendant аirline which caused her to accompany her mother. Her petition plainly shows thаt it was not a requirement of the airline that she accompany her mother, but only that someone accompany her, nor that the airline wаs negligent in advising her improperly or falsely with respect to her mother’s flight. There is, as the defendant airline asserts, no logical direct connection between what ocсurred in Missouri and the alleged actions or conduct occurring in California. The allegаtions of plaintiff’s petition plainly state a cause of action in slander arising in San Francisco, California, regardless of how the plaintiff arrived in California. Defendant cоntends that since the cause of action arose in California, Section 516.190 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., the sо-called “borrowing” statute applies and requires application of Sectiоns 335, 340, California Code of Civil Procedure Annotated, 1972, and that position is well taken. The Missouri statute makes the California statute our own as to the cause of action arising in California. Jenkins v. Thompson,
All concur.