Court Filings

Wrongful Death Statute-Limitation of Actions- Period within which Beneficiary Must Sue Still Strictly Construed

Categories
Published
of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
Missouri Law Review Volume 42 Issue 3 Summer 1977 Article 13 Summer 1977 Wrongful Death Statute-Limitation of Actions- Period within which Beneficiary Must Sue Still Strictly Construed Mary C. Doesburg
Transcript
Missouri Law Review Volume 42 Issue 3 Summer 1977 Article 13 Summer 1977 Wrongful Death Statute-Limitation of Actions- Period within which Beneficiary Must Sue Still Strictly Construed Mary C. Doesburg Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary C. Doesburg, Wrongful Death Statute-Limitation of Actions-Period within which Beneficiary Must Sue Still Strictly Construed, 42 Mo. L. Rev. (1977) Available at: This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. Doesburg: Doesburg: MISSOURI Wrongful Death LAW Statute-Limitation of Actions REVIEW [Vol. 42 Canadian and Australian courts have held the above arguments to be sufficient basis for recognition of per quod servitium amisit without the Hambrook limitation. A recent Canadian case, not involving a menial or domestic servant, added an interesting modification to the interpretation of loss of services. Reasoning that loss of profits to an employer due to injury to his servant is unforeseeable to the negligent defendant, the court in Genereux v. Peterson, Howell & Heather (Canada) Ltd.,26 refused to allow damages for loss of profits and limited the defendant's liability to payment to the employer of the amount spent in acquiring substitute services. This limitation is one that the Missouri court and other American jurisdictions rejecting per quod would do well to consider. It allows recovery by an employer who has been out the expense of obtaining substitute help without placing undue burdens on negligent defendants. This Canadian gloss might present a suitable compromise for courts that feel the action is outmoded. In analyzing this limitation, however, one should consider whether it provides adequate compensation to the master of a unique or key employee. An analysis of the Missouri court's opinion in Horton shows a decision which is in keeping with a general trend in American courts. However, a closer examination of the action per quod, its history, and the reasons for which it is still recognized in other jurisdictions tends to make one wonder if the court was hasty in permanently razing a cause of action which allows one economically damaged to recover from one responsible for the injury causing the loss. This question becomes one of prime importance where a damaged master finds himself remediless for the loss of services of a key employee. BOBETrE SANDERS WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE-LIMITATION OF ACTIONS-PERIOD WITHIN WHICH BENEFICIARY MUST SUE STILL STRICTLY CONSTRUED State ex rel. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. v. Clark' Roy Ruis died on June 12, 1970, from injuries he received while employed by Kansas City Stock Yards Company. He was survived by his wife, three minor children, and his parents. Shortly after Ruis' death, his widow and minor children filed a claim against Stock Yards under the 935; Fridman, Loss of Services, 24 SOLICITOR 10 (1957); Note, Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W.) v. Scott, 2 MEL. U.L. REV. 413 (1960). 26. [1973] 34 D.L.R.3d S.W.2d 142 (Mo. En Banc 1976). Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository, 1977] Missouri Law RECENT Review, Vol. CASES 42, Iss. 3 [1977], Art. 13 Kansas Workmen's Compensation Law. 2 That claim was denied on August 9, Plaintiffs then filed a wrongful death claim in the Jackson County Circuit Court on May 25, Upon Stock Yard's application for a writ of prohibition, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the wrongful death claim of the widow and minor children was barred when brought more than one year, but less than two years, after decedent's death because he was survived by his parents. 3 Furthermore, the period of limitations was not tolled by the pendency of plaintiffs' Workmen's Compensation claim. 4 In Selsor v. Zenith Radio Corp., 5 decided concurrently with Stock Yards, the essential facts were similar. The court again denied the decedent's widow and minor child the right to maintain a wrongful death claim more than one year after death when decedent's parents also survived. The practice of paying compensation to the relatives of a person killed through the negligence of another is rooted in Anglo-Saxon history. 6 But the development of a common law wrongful death claim was curtailed by the case of Baker v. Bolton 7 in which Lord Ellenborough ruled that there was no cause of action at common law for the death of a person. 8 The subsequent adoption of this rule by both English and American courts created a void in the common law. The English were the first to remedy the situation by enacting Lord Campbell's Act in American legislatures 2. The claim, filed on November 30, 1970, was denied not on its merits, but on the ground that Stock Yards had not elected to be covered by Workmen's Compensation and was not engaged in one of the hazardous occupations for which such coverage was mandatory. A denial of the claim on June 8, 1971, was appealed. By the time this decision was affirmed on August 12, 1971, it was already more than one year since Ruis' death. Id. at 146, The Missouri wrongful death act contains two periods of limitation. The general limitation, , RSMo 1969, states that [e]very action instituted under section shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action shall accrue... But , RSMo 1969 provides that an action may be brought: (1) By the spouse or minor children... or (2) If there be no spouse or minor children or if the spouse or minor children fail to sue within one year after such death... then by the father and mother.... (emphasis added). 4. Plaintiffs sought to make applicable to their petition a provision which tolls the limitation for wrongful death claims for one year after a nonsuit is suffered , RSMo The court rejected this argument on the ground that the Workmen's Compensation Claim was not an action within the meaning of , RSMo S.W.2d at 146. See also King v. Smith Baking Co., 228 Mo. App. 721, 71 S.W.2d 115 (K.C. Ct. App. 1934) S.W.2d 157 (Mo. En Banc 1976). 6. See generally I S. SPEISER, RECOVERY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH 1:2 (2d ed. 1975) [hereinafter referred to as SPEISER] Camp. 493, 170 Eng. Rep (1808). 8. It has been noted that Baker v. Bolton was tried in a local court before a single judge, and there was neither supporting authority nor clear reasoning given for the rule of law. Smedley, Wrongful Death-Bases of the Common Law Rules, 13 VAND. L. REV. 605, (1960). 9. An Act for Compensating the Families of Persons Killed by Accidents, 1846, 9 & 10 Vict., c Doesburg: Doesburg: Wrongful Death Statute-Limitation of Actions MISSOURI LAW REVIEW (Vol. 42 soon followed this example by passing wrongful death statutes.' 0 Missouri's first wrongful death act, adopted in 1855, was patterned after Lord Campbell's Act.' Because of the adoption of the rule that there was no cause of action for wrongful death at common law, wrongful death statutes are often construed strictly as in derogation of the common law. 12 This strict constructionist attitude often frustrates the compensatory purpose of the statute by causing a denial of benefits to the persons the statutes were designed to protect. Plaintiffs have special difficulties pursuing wrongful death claims in Missouri because of the complexity of the statute and the multiplicity of rules which have been developed to aid in its interpretation. 3 The remainder of this casenote will critically examine the case authority underlying the Stock Yards court's pronouncement of ten uniformly followed principles ' 4 of interpretation of the wrongful death statute and will identify areas of interpretation of the wrongful death statute in which the strict constructionist attitude has been replaced by a more liberal one. These are the areas in which plaintiffs are most likely to persuade Missouri courts to change the wrongful death laws. The first principle set out in Stock Yards stated that the wrongful death statute provides but one indivisible claim for the death of a person which accrues on the date of death.' 5 This principle has two parts: the first deals with the indivisibility of wrongful death claims, and the second with the accrual of the cause of action. According to the indivisibility principle, there is only a single right of action, no matter how many parties are guilty 10. New York's law was first in the United States. An Act Requiring Compensation for Causing Death by Wrongful Act, Neglect, or Default, ch. 450, 1847 N.Y. Laws, p An Act for the Better Security of Life, Property and Character, ch. 51, 1-8, RSMo The statute contained two sections under which claims for wrongful death could be brought, one providing a penalty for deaths caused by common carriers, ch. 51, 2, RSMO 1855 (repealed 1955), and the other for all other cases of deaths caused by wrongful acts, ch. 51, 3, RSMo For a list of jurisdictions so holding (including Missouri) see 1 SPEISER, supra note 6, 1: The Missouri death statute gives the wrongful death cause of action first to the surviving spouse and minor children, then if they are not living or fail to sue within a year, to the father and mother. If no one in this first or second class of beneficiaries exists, then the personal representative may bring an action for the benefit of heirs , RSMO There are also two time limitations in the statute (note 3, supra) and innumerable problems of interpretation. The Missouri statute is somewhat unusual in this respect. Most American death acts follow Lord Campbell's Act and give the right to bring the action to the deceased's personal representative immediately, thereby avoiding many of the problems of sequential timing of claims faced under the Missouri statute. See 2 SPEISER, supra note 6, 11:29 for a list of all states showing who is entitled to bring the action in each S.W.2d at Id. Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository, 1977] Missouri Law Review, Vol. 42, Iss. 3 [1977], Art. 13 RECENT CASES of causing a wrongful death. An attempt by a beneficiary to enforce a claim against anyone is an appropriation of the entire wrongful death claim. 6 In Spencer v. Bradley 17 a surviving spouse released some of the tortfeasors responsible for his wife's death while expressly reserving the right to sue the others. He did not file a claim during the limitations period applicable to spouses. His children then brought a wrongful death action against the unreleased tortfeasors. Their claim was denied because the husband's release of some tortfeasors had appropriated the entire wrongful death claim, barring the childrens' rights even as to unreleased tortfeasors. The wrongful death cause of action cannot be split between classes of beneficiaries. This principle is applied uniformly,' 8 and at times defeats the compensatory purpose of the statute. 19 The accrual principle establishes that the cause of action accrues at death. This principle is uniformly applied in Missouri. 2 In Frazee v. Partney 2 ' plaintiff's wife was the victim of a hit and run driver. By the time plaintiff discovered the identity of the driver, the statute of limitations had run. His argument that the cause of action did not accrue until he found the defendant was rejected. The unfairness which can result from application of the accrual principal is mitigated by allowing certain situations to toll the statute of limitations. For example, if a defendant absents himself from the state so that personal service cannot be had on him, the time period during which he is absent does not count as part of the two year limitation period. 2 2 Also, if in a timely filed action plaintiff suffers a nonsuit, or judgment is arrested or reversed, the plaintiff can bring a new 16. Packard v. Hannibal & St. J.R.R., 181 Mo. 421, 80 S.W. 951 (1904) S.W.2d 202 (Mo. 1961). 18. Blessing v. Chicago B. & Q.R.R., 357 Mo. 1006, 171 S.W.2d 602 (1943); McNamara v. Slavens, 76 Mo. 329 (1882). 19. Courts should allow a second claim to be filed in cases where plaintiff has sued the wrong defendant and does not discover the mistake until the statute of limitations has run. In Packard v. Hannibal & St. J.R.R., 181 Mo. 421, 80 S.W. 951 (1904) a widow had sued the wrong railroad for her husband's death. The defendant's motion to dismiss was granted after the widow's time for bringing an action was barred by the statute of limitations. As there was at the time no provision for tolling the statute in cases of nonsuit, she could not refile the claim. It was decided that her children could not then sue the proper defendant, although their claim was not yet barred by the statute of limitations, since the claim filed by the widow had appropriated the one single indivisible cause of action and forever cut off the rights of her children. Not allowing a second claim to be filed because of the indivisibility principle does serious injustice to the decedent's beneficiaries in cases such as this. 20. Kennedy v. Burrier, 36 Mo. 128 (1865); Deming v. Williams, 321 S.W.2d 720 (K.C. Mo. App. 1959) S.W.2d 915 (Mo. 1958) , RSMo A non-resident motorist would not come under this section, since personal service can be had upon him through the long arm statute, , RSMo See Haver v. Bassett, 287 S.W.2d 342 (K.C. Mo. App. 1956). 4 Doesburg: Doesburg: MISSOURI Wrongful Death LAW Statute-Limitation REVIEW of Actions [Vol. 42 action within one year. 23 The general statutes of limitations are tolled during any time in which defendant's improper act prevents plaintiff from commencing an action. 24 Plaintiff in Frazee was not allowed the benefit of this tolling provision, because provisions which toll the general statutes of limitations are not applicable to the wrongful death special statute of limitations. 25 Frazee serves as a warning that courts construe the wrongful death statute strictly in deciding what will toll the statute of limitations. Another principle relied on by the Stock Yards court requires the suit for wrongful death to be filed within two years from the date of death unless a tolling situation exists. 2 6 Under this general limitation principle Missouri courts have adopted a liberal policy toward permitting amendments made after the statute of limitations has run to relate back to the original petition. Many cases state the requirement that a claimant for wrongful death must bring himself strictly within the terms of the statute to state a claim. 2 7 Thus one would expect that a defective petition which failed to state a claim under the express terms of the statute could not be cured by allowing an amendment to relate back after the statute of limitations had run. However, such relation back has been allowed frequently. 28 Although Missouri had no rule of procedure on the relation back of amendments prior to 1973, it had been established by Slater v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co 29 that a petition which contained the essential elements of a , RSMo , RSMo The period of limitations for wrongful death claims is tolled only by the two provisions specifically included in the wrongful death act. See text accompanying notes 22, 23 supra. See also Frazee v. Partney, 314 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. 1958), criticized in Rahoy, Torts- Wrongful Death Statute in Missouri-Application of General Statutes of Limitation, 24 Mo. L. REV. 397 (1959). The statutes of limitations applicable to torts generally may be tolled: when service cannot be had on defendant because of his absence from the state ( , RSMo 1969); when the plaintiff is under a disability such as minority, insanity, etc. ( , RSMo 1969); when a plaintiff suffers a nonsuit, or reversal or arrest of judgment in a related judicial proceeding ( , RSMo 1969); when defendant's improper acts keep plaintiff from suing ( , RSMo 1969); when a party entitled to sue but under a disability dies ( , RSMo 1969); when a plaintiff or primary defendant dies ( ,.240,.250, RSMo 1969). If the wrongful death period of limitations were construed as other statutes of limitations, all these provisions would be available for wrongful death plaintiffs. For a study of the structure of statutes of limitation in Missouri, see Davis, Tort Liability and the Statutes of Limitation, 33 Mo. L. REV. 171 (1968) S.W.2d at Chandler v. Chicago & A.R.R., 251 Mo. 592, , 158 S.W. 35, 37 (1913); Barker v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry., 91 Mo. 86, 94, 14 S.W. 280, 282 (1886). 28. Nelms v. Bright, 299 S.W.2d 483 (Mo. En Banc 1957); Slater v. K.C. Terminal Ry., 271 S.W.2d 581 (Mo. 1954); Cytron v. St. Louis Transit Co., 205 Mo. 692, 104 S.W. 109 (En Banc 1907) S.W.2d 581 (Mo. 1954). A widow filed as administratrix of her husband's estate under FELA, but the suit could not be maintained because defendant was not her husband's employer. After the statute of limitations had run on Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository, 1977] Missouri RECENT Law Review, CASES Vol. 42, Iss. 3 [1977], Art. 13 claim but was defective for failure to allege some necessary fact could be amended to cure the deficiency after the statute of limitations had run. New defendants could not be added after the statute of limitations had run, 30 but could be added after the expiration of the six months preferential period by a beneficiary of the first class who had appropriated the wrongful death claim within this shorter period. ' The courts' approach to relation back of amendments should become even more liberal because of the adoption of Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 55.33(c). Under this rule an amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading whenever the claim or defense in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading... 32 The new Missouri rule is identical to the first paragraph of rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Missouri courts follow the construction given federal rule 15(c) by the federal courts, an amendment will be allowed to relate back if the original claim was adequate to notify the defendant of the facts upon which relief is sought. Thus, addition of both defendants and plaintiffs may be possible after the statute of limitations has run. 34 The new rule should permit courts to avoid some of the harsh results reached in earlier cases, but it is not yet clear how liberal Missouri courts will become in allowing relation back of amendments under the new rule. 35 her claim, she was permitted to file an amended claim as widow under the wrongful death act. 30. Deming v. Williams, 321 S.W.2d 720 (K.C. Mo. App. 1959). 31. Meyer v. Pevely Dairy Co., 333 Mo. 1109, 64 S.W.2d 696 (1933). 32. MO. R. CIv. P (c). 33. The federal courts have used a notice test in determining when amended claims arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading. The policy behind this test is that if the original pleading notified defendant of the facts on which plaintiff's claim is based, defendant can then prepare a defense to any claims arising out of the same factual situation. The construction given a federal rule is persuasive authority for Missouri courts in construing Missouri rules which are identical to the analogous federal rule. See Crahan, Expansion of Permissive Joinder of Defendants in Missouri, 41Mo. L. REV. 199 (1976). 34. Addition of defendants should be permitted where the original pleadings notify defendants of the facts on which relief is sought, and there is such identity of interest between original and substitute defendants that defendant should know that but for a mistake he would be the one sued. If the original pleadings are adequate to notify defendant that other persons are entitled to sue him on the wrongful death claim, it should be possible to add th
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks