Ostermueller v. Potter, 76092

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation868 S.W.2d 110
Docket NumberNo. 76092,76092
PartiesDorothy J. OSTERMUELLER and Ralph Ostermueller, Appellants, v. Samuel S. POTTER, Respondent.
Decision Date21 December 1993

Jack J. Cavanagh, St. Louis, for appellants.

Stephanie K. Morrison, St. Louis, for respondent.

COVINGTON, Chief Justice.

On February 13, 1990, Dorothy J. Ostermueller and Ralph Ostermueller filed a petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County seeking damages for personal injury and loss of consortium. They alleged that on April 25, 1986, Samuel S. Potter negligently drove through an intersection and struck Mrs. Ostermueller's automobile. The Ostermuellers made three unsuccessful attempts to serve process upon Mr. Potter. On September 17, 1990, the circuit court placed the case on its dismissal docket, and on November 7, 1990, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. On May 22, 1991, within one year of the dismissal, the Ostermuellers filed a second petition alleging the same cause of action. Mr. Potter was served on June 4, 1991, more than five years after the alleged acts of negligence occurred. Mr. Potter raised a statute of limitations defense in his answer and moved for dismissal. The circuit court dismissed the second petition with prejudice, stating that the cause of action was filed outside the statute of limitations and that the one-year "savings statute," § 516.230, RSMo 1986, did not apply. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed. This Court granted transfer to address the question of whether a plaintiff who suffers a nonsuit on an initial petition may invoke the one-year savings statute, § 516.230, where the initial petition was filed within the statute of limitations, but where the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in serving process on the defendant. Reversed and remanded.

Disposition of this case is governed by the plain language of Rule 53.01, read together with Missouri's savings statute. The statute provides:

If any action shall have been commenced within the times respectively prescribed in sections 516.010 to 516.370, and the plaintiff therein suffers a nonsuit, ... such plaintiff may commence a new action from time to time, within one year after such nonsuit suffered....

§ 516.230, RSMo 1986. A civil action is commenced by filing a petition with the court. Rule 53.01. Negligence claims have a five-year statute of limitations. § 516.120, RSMo 1986. The Ostermuellers filed their first petition within five years of the alleged negligent acts. Under Rule 53.01, the Ostermuellers therefore commenced the action before the statute of limitations expired. Because the Ostermuellers refiled within the savings statute's one-year limitation period, the second petition is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Mr. Potter argues that because the Ostermuellers failed to exercise due diligence in effecting service of process in the first suit, the first suit was not commenced within the statute of limitations; therefore, the savings statute cannot apply. Support exists for superimposing on Rule 53.01 a requirement that plaintiffs exercise due diligence in the service of process to invoke the savings statute. U.S. Laminating Corp. v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Brady v. Ashcroft
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 18 Enero 2022
    ...action is commenced by filing a petition with the court. ’ " Id. at 650 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). Similarly, Ostermueller v. Potter , 868 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. 1993), held that, for purposes of the limitations periods in chapter 516, "[a] civil action is commenced by filing a petition w......
  • Brady v. Ashcroft
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 18 Enero 2022
    ...limitations periods in chapter 516, "[a] civil action is commenced by filing a petition with the court." Id. at 111 (citation omitted). Ostermueller noted that § 506.110.2 "defines the commencement of a civil action as '[t]he filing of a petition in a court of record, . . . and suing out of......
  • Townsend v. Eastern Chemical Waste Systems
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 3 Julio 2007
    ...Kincannon v. Schoenlaub, 521 S.W.2d 391 (Mo. banc 1975), and, even if it was, it was struck by the Missouri Supreme Court in Ostermueller v. Potter, 868 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. banc 1993), which was decided on December 21, 1993, approximately two months after the respondents voluntarily dismissed t......
  • Bray v. Sexton
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 5 Diciembre 2017
    ...the court to commence [an] action." Bailey v. Innovative Management & Inv., Inc. , 890 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Mo. banc 1994) ; Ostermueller v. Potter , 868 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Mo. banc 1993) ; see Rule 53.01 (providing that "[a] civil action is commenced by filing a petition with the court"). The pu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT