Bell v. Kelly Motor Lines, Civ. A. No. 3868-50.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1951
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 3868-50.
• Citation: 95 F. Supp. 682
• Parties: BELL et ux. v. KELLY MOTOR LINES, Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

95 F. Supp. 682

BELL et ux. v. KELLY MOTOR LINES, Inc.

Civ. A. No. 3868-50.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

January 31, 1951.

William B. Jones, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in the suit and respondent on this motion.

Richard W. Galiher, William E. Stewart, Jr. Washington, D. C. for defendant and petitioner.

TAMM, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action on September 6, 1950, to recover for personal injuries incurred when their motor vehicle collided with the defendant's trailer truck. The collision occurred in Virginia on April 14, 1949. The plaintiffs allege that the trailer truck of the defendant was negligently driven by the employees of the defendant acting within the scope of their employment.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and a motion for change of venue.

The defendant predicated his motion to dismiss upon the theory that the plaintiffs' claim is barred by the Viriginia statute of limitations which for this type of action is one year. The District of Columbia statute of limitations which governs this type of claim is three years. Title 12-201, D. C. Code (1940 Edition). The theory of the defendant is that since the action would be barred in Virginia, the state in which the tort occurred, it is barred everywhere, and that consequently the District of Columbia three year limitation has no applicability.

The Court in addressing itself to the defendant's first motion, to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, observes that insofar as reported cases are concerned, the question of law raised by the pleadings appears to be one of first impression in this jurisdiction. Briefly stated, the issue of law is whether the three year District of Columbia statute of limitations or the one year Virginia statute of limitations applies in a case in the District of Columbia on a common law tort cause of action which arose in Virginia.

In any discussion in which the question to be resolved is whether the statute of limitations of the forum or that of the lex loci delicti applies in an action on a tort, it is essential that an immediate distinction be drawn between those tort claims of common-law origin, and those which are statute-created. 11 Am.Jur. p. 505, et ff. Since in this action the basis of the plaintiffs' claim is a common-law tort, those cases which involve the question as to what statute of limitations applies in actions on a statute-created right are not germane. Lewis v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 339, 177 F.2d 654; Moran v. Harrison, 1937, 67 App.D.C. 237, 91 F.2d 310, 113 A.L.R. 505.

The Court of Appeals of this jurisdiction has apparently never ruled on this precise question. Twice the Court of Appeals has generalized to the effect that a limitation on the time of suit is procedural and is governed by the law of the forum. Kaplan v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. of New York, 1939, 71 App.D.C. 250, 109 F.2d 463; Wells v. Alropa Corp., 1936, 65 App.D.C. 281, 82 F.2d 887. However, neither of these involved tort actions.

The Kaplan case, supra, involved a suit on a life insurance policy payable to an adult and to certain minors. Suit was brought in the District of Columbia, although the policy was to be paid in New York. The New York limitation was six years, whereas the District of Columbia limitation was three years. The Court, speaking through Associate Justice Edgerton, held that "According to the established rule, a limitation on the time of suit is procedural and is governed by the law of the forum." 71 App.D.C. at page 253, 109 F.2d at page 465. The Wells case involved a suit in the District of Columbia on a contract (note) payable in Florida. The Court ruled that "Although it is a Florida contract, the statute of limitations of the forum where the suit was brought,...