Blanks v. Cantwell, KCD
| Decision Date | 26 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 578 S.W.2d 349 |
| Parties | James BLANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert CANTWELL, Defendant-Respondent. 30072. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dwight L. Larison, Kansas City, for plaintiff-appellant.
John E. Burruss, Jr., Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P. J., and SWOFFORD, C. J., and WASSERSTROM, J.
Appellant, hereafter plaintiff, appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's petition for damages as barred by the limitation of Section 516.120, RSMo 1969. Affirmed.
Disposition of the cause by the trial court was upon defendant's motion for summary judgment supported by attached affidavits. Plaintiff filed no opposing affidavits and the facts thereby adduced in support of the motion stand admitted for the purpose of the motion. Cherry v. City of Hayti Heights, 563 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1978). Although summary judgments are not generally favored, the procedure is an appropriate vehicle for assertion of an affirmative defense entitling the party to judgment as a matter of law. Hunt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 560 S.W.2d 280 (Mo.App.1978).
The applicable portions of the record disclose the following facts. Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident July 7, 1968, while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant. Plaintiff's petition for damages was filed July 2, 1973, but summons issued to defendant was returned non est. An alias summons was issued August 30, 1976, and served on defendant the following day. No request for summons no other process in the case appears between the dates of the non est return in 1973 and the issuance of the alias summons more than three years later.
The accident giving rise to the cause of action in 1968 occurred in Miller County which was then the residence of plaintiff and defendant. Defendant continued to live in Miller County until mid-1972 when he moved to Ohio where he obtained employment. He returned to Miller County in 1974 and lived and worked there during the succeeding two year period up to the date when service of process was completed. In fact, defendant was employed at the same place of business as plaintiff's father for more than one year subsequent to May 1, 1974, and was personally acquainted with the Miller County Sheriff who saw and spoke with defendant from time to time between May 1, 1974, and August 30, 1976.
The five year limitation applicable to this action was tolled by the filing of the petition within the limitation period which would otherwise have expired some five days thereafter. Continued suspension of the limitation period is, however, conditioned upon due diligence being exercised in obtaining service. Votaw v. Schmittgens, 538 S.W.2d 884 (Mo.App.1976). Whether due diligence has been exercised is to be determined on a case by case basis. Wooliver v. Schopp, 509 S.W.2d 216 (Mo.App.1974).
As shown above, defendant's presence in Miller County where he was available...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wooldridge v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
...of America, Inc., 480 F.2d 947 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 994, 94 S.Ct. 1596, 39 L.Ed.2d 891 (1974); Blanks v. Cantwell, 578 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Mo.App. 1979); Went v. Leve, 574 S.W.2d 700, 708 (Mo.App.1978); Votaw v. Schmittgens, 538 S.W.2d 884, 886-7 (Mo.App.1976). However, the ......
-
Atkinson v. Be-Mac Transport, Inc.
...court's findings are against the weight of the evidence, we must give deference to its finding of lack of due diligence. Blanks v. Cantwell, 578 S.W.2d 349 (Mo.App.1979); Allen v. Curry, 568 S.W.2d at 584. Under the circumstances of this particular case, we cannot hold that the trial court'......
-
Kennon v. Citizens Mut. Ins. Co., s. 45514
...vehicle, however, for assertion of an affirmative defense entitling the party to judgment as a matter of law. Blanks v. Cantwell, 578 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Mo.App.1979). Defendant claimed that although plaintiff's suit was filed within one year from the date of the loss, defendant was never appr......
-
McReynolds v. Vawter, WD30991
...limitations may then be interposed as a complete defense. Driscoll v. Konze, supra (13 months held unreasonable delay); Blanks v. Cantwell, 578 S.W.2d 349 (Mo.App.1979) (3 years held unreasonable delay); Allen v. Curry, 568 S.W.2d 582 (Mo.App.1978) (approximately 21/2 years held unreasonabl......