*1 Steele, plain- John M. for Minneapolis, tiffs. OSTRANDER, minor, Dano Lane Ronald OSTRANDER and Os Hoard, Mandler, Faegre Heidi John P.
trander, parents guardi his and natural Benson, Minneapolis, Mills, for Cone Inc. ans, Ostrander, individually, Hall, Conlin, Murnane, Susan White & Plaintiffs, Brandt, Paul, St. Garment Palmetto Co. v. MILLS, INC., Defendant, CONE
Palmetto Garment Defendant. KEITH, Justice. CORPORATION, CONE MILLS Plaintiff, Third-Party A certification order from the United (Jensen) Enga, Jodi Paul ENGA and States District Court for the District of individually, Third-Party Minnesota, presents Third Division us with Defendants. following question: May parents delay a suit for medical No. C6-88-2644. expenses, services, society, loss of lost Supreme Court of Minnesota. wages, and other out-of-pocket expenses resulting from their Sept. ries until 1 after the child’s 18th Rehearing birthday under Minn.Stat. 541.15? May Ostrander,
On Dano Lane old, then 19 severely injured months was pajamas caught when his fire. On March both Dano and his Ron- Ostrander, commenced this action in the United States District Court Minnesota, for the District of Third Divi- sion, defendants, Mills, Inc., Cone and Palmetto Garment manufacturers pajama pajamas respec- fabric and tively. In addition to claim per- Dano’s sonal injury, his asserted claims on expenses their own behalf medical parties agree loss of services. timely Dano’s cause action is because it operation is tolled of Minn.Stat. until after he reaches the age majority. dispute instead cen- ters on the claims of Dano’s expenses their medical and loss of services resulted have from Dano’s parents' Defendants contend that the indi- vidual claims are barred because were brought within 6-year statute of limitations out in set (1988), while the Ostranders contend that 541.15 tolls their claims as well as their son’s.
241
Railway
of Southern
580
the
unless
claims
undisputed
that
It
(Ala.1981).
preserved
are
Ronald and
Ostrander
541.15,
operation of Minn.Stat.
by the
§
argue
toll-
Respondents
that because the
are barred
the
those claims
ac-
ing
the words “cause of
statute uses
limitations,
in
Minn.
of
this case
statute
arising
tion” that
from the tor-
all claims
only
then is
541.05. The
Stat. §
preserved. Respon-
tious incident are
of limi-
running of the statute
whether the
the
dents further
that because
out
in
541.05 is
tations set
Minn.Stat. §
broadly
statute of limitations is worded
Minn.
suspended by Minn.Stat.
541.15.
§
specifically
does
because the statute
provides
pertinent part:
in
541.15
§
parents’ claims and
mention the
(a)
paragraph
in
Except
provided
as
tolling
only
explicitly limit the
effect
(b),
following
any
grounds
of dis-
tolling
possessing
disability,
those
the
existing
ability,
at the time when a cause
effect should be extended to the
anytime dur-
arising
of action
accrued
claims here
their claims are deriva-
because
limitation,
suspend
ing
period
of
shall
pre-
tive or
of the “cause of action”
running
period
of
of limitation
served.
removed; provided
We do
think the
“cause of
words
period, except in the case of infan-
action” as
statute have
used
for more than
cy, shall not
extended
meaning independent
from the disabled
any
nor in
for more than
five
case
prosecution
plaintiff’s
of such an action.
after the
ceases:
recognize
themselves
this in
(1)
plaintiff within the
That the
their brief where
state that
years.
of 18
actions,
give
a minor
rise to two causes of
determining
the claims of Ron-
claim.
child’s claim and
Ostrander
fall within the
We note that four of the five disabilities
scope
analysis
of
our
is con-
this
are
described
statute
worded
provided
of con-
statutorily
trolled
rules
disability possessed
of a
terms
(1988) pro-
Minn.Stat.
645.16
struction.
§
See
particular
individual.
pertinent part:
vides
541.15(a)(l-4).
import
We think the
of
§
applica-
in their
the words of a law
When
wording
unambiguous.
is clear and
existing
tion to an
situation are clear and
Only
possessing
those individuals
the disa-
ambiguity,
from
letter of the
free
all
claims, or
bilities described will have their
disregarded
law shall not be
under the
action, preserved by
causes of
pretext
pursuing
spirit.
541.15.
404 So.2d
The effect of Minn.Stat.
v. Drackett Products
see also Macku
toll the
of limitations for certain
statute
Neb.
plaintiffs possessing
classes
disabilities
(tolling
exclusive benefit of
statute
We
described in
think the
plaintiff).
disabled
application
words of the statute
Respondents’ argument
that all claims
unambiguous
case are
the facts of this
preserved
single
event are
from a
tortious
clear;
Os-
because
tolling effect of Minn.Stat.
not,
time, pos-
trander did
at the relevant
This
could be used
is untenable.
any
sess
disabilities described
vic-
case where there
541.15, the statute of limita-
single
and one of
tims of a
tortious event
is not tolled as
them and
tions
disability recognized
the victims suffers a
e.g., Seguin
claims .are barred.1
exam-
N.E.2d
under
suggests
ple, respondents’ argument
see also Emerson v.
Limitations,
Minority
jurisdic-
on Account
in other
Statute
1. A clear
of courts
Child,
Injured
Applicable
to Parent's or
provisions relating
have held that
Arising
Right
Same
only
persons
Action
Out
apply
Guardian’s
to minors
216, 219-28, Supp. at
Injury,
age majority
49 A.L.R. 4th
under the
not extend to
Annotation,
(1986
Tolling
Supp.1988).
parents.
claim of
might be
octogenarian.
the statute of limitations
tolled minor or
stat-
all
bus
recognizes
the victims of a
accident should
ute
as a
sus-
one of
victims be incarcerated
follow-
running
pending
normal
of the statute
accident.
See Minn.Stat.
limitations,
it would be unfair to
*3
541.15(a)(3). It is inconceivable that the
unable,
bar a suit
a
victim
tort
legislature intended
a
result.
bring
a
own
to
suit
“delayed
behalf.
law does not favor
Labeling
Ostrander’s
prosecution of a
tort
minor’s
claims”
compel
claim
a differ-
“derivative”
suggested by
respondent.
Lane
Dano
While
label
ent result.
“derivative”
may go
Ostrander’s claim is still viable and
plaintiffs
tell
that a
us
claim is de-
forward.
pendent
underlying
on
tort if
proof
an
succeed, it
no
that claim is to
offers
reason
Legislature has determined that the
why
a
those who
not suffer from disabil-
public
is best served
laws that
ity
should receive
benefit
claims to be commenced within reasonable
See, e.g.,
statute.
at
exception
policy
time limits. A
clear
164-65,
N.E.2d at
is made
claims minors. The Ostran-
at
years
ders had six
to commence this action.
difficulty
ques-
Accordingly we answer the certified
and psy-
Lane’s medical
proving
Dano
the negative.
tion in
chological damages
bring-
a delay
dictate
damages
until such
defi-
suit
YETKA,
and
Because the Dano Lane
nite
known.
Justice
respon-
ought
delayed, reason the
suit
to be
I
dissent. Minn.Stat.
dents,
Ostran-
perforce, Ronald
silent as to whether the claims of minors’
delayed.
also
der’s suit must
be
parents are also tolled.
readily
There is no
apparent “plain
Respondents’
meaning,”
lan-
an
guage
appeal
guidance
to construe the
statute offers little
statute in
light
policy arguments
they find
resolution of this
per-
statutory
issue
suasive. This court has repeatedly
construction. Because
said
this issue
unset-
“plain meaning”
that the
law,
statutes should tled under
it
Minnesota
is helpful to
e.g.,
followed.
McClish v. Pan-O-
examine cases
jurisdictions.
from other
538,
Baking
Gold
336 N.W.2d
542-43 Though presenting
position,
(Minn.1983). McClish,
when faced with the decision of the
Supreme
Wisconsin
logical
appealing policy arguments,
Court in Korth v. American Family Ins.
this court rejected
arguments
in fa- Co.,
326,
(1983),
115 Wis.2d
plain meaning
vor of the
because,
is illustrative
unlike the approach
Id. at 544. In so doing, we noted
followed
of courts in other
policy arguments
that the
properly
should
jurisdictions, it
competing
examines the
ar-
argued
legislature,
before the
not this
guments
analyzes
policy
the relevant
court.
Id.
agree
considerations.
with the Korth
court
Moreover,
approach
that the
resolving
best
statute was not
designed
legal
this issue is to
examine the
proof prob-
ameliorate difficult
context in
lems,
which
unique
which are
claim arises
as the
amake
respondents’ argument suggests.
Proof
determination that
furthers
future damages
problem
question.1
id.,
is a
the law
countless
cases, regardless of
whether the victim is a
1. The Wisconsin statute the statute of escape, lim- a sheriff other officer for an or for during minority itations cited in recovery was Wis. property real posses- or the 893.18(2) (1982), provided: is, sion thereof at (a) time the cause of action accrued, person bring If a entitled either Within the action men- chapter, except except against tioned provid- in this actions for the actions health care ** * recovery penalty aof or forfeiture or ers the time of such not a interpretation majority’s of limita Under purpose of statutes The basic bring be forced to will from stale protect defendants years though within 6 even their suit is unavail brought after evidence damages may ripe. not be child’s claim Elec. v. Emerson able. See Swenson bring within 6 Forcing suit 690, (Minn.1985), cert. de bring the years might compel also them to nied, 106 S.Ct. 476 U.S. time, thereby suit the same elim- Korth, 115 at minor’s Wis.2d L.Ed.2d inating period provided the extended time Although the at 497. 340 N.W.2d Granted, parents strong prompt interest public has prosecute may elect not to their action and unique circumstances filing of *4 child’s until the full extent of their minors and wait personal injury claims of known, injuries are but this would result together policies with the duplicative tri- lawsuits and justify con two supporting joinder of judi- with als. Such a result is inconsistent struing to toll addition, economy. having In two tri- cial parents’ and the limitation the child’s both raise a as to als would serious period. apply to the judicata res would involving many cases results second suit based on the injuries, full extent Erecting first. v. Modern See Thill unas- psychological, are physical both (1969). 284 Minn. long after certainable Clearly, tolling period of the limitations like the especially This is true situations parents’ claim is a both the child’s and present child was less than case where the of the statute that reasonable construction injured. Since defen- years old when efficiency and fairness promotes preserve already required to evi- dants are courts. their readiness de- dence and maintain claim, they will not the child’s fend POPOVICH, Chief Justice parents’ prejudiced upon claims are based claims as these primary pur- occurrence. join in the dissent of Justice pose not an of statutes of limitations is YETKA. types of overriding concern in these cases. Extending statute to probably ensure that
would brought together,
and child’s claim but until the full extent of the
ries are known. arising from the joinder of claims Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of upholds public’s inter-
same occurrence complete, prompt, and efficient est proceed- settlement controversies FAN, Suifong Appellant. David Korth, ing. See No. CX-88-2467. related claims N.W.2d at 496. Joinder of Appeals of Minnesota. possibility also minimizes the Court litigation judgments. inconsistent Sept. 5, 1989. fact that Minnesota law id. The Review joinder suit with their child’s does not render the less
supporting joinder
important. N.W.2d at Wis.2d at the commence- of the time limited for * * is similar 495. This statute *. ment of the action (1988).