Blue v. Maico
| Decision Date | 23 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 8058. |
| Citation | 217 F. Supp. 747 |
| Parties | George R. BLUE, as Administrator of the Estate of Virginia Carole Blue v. Carl N. MAICO and Fulton Air Service, Inc., a Georgia corporation. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Gambrell, Harlan, Russell, Moye & Richardson, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant Maico.
Sheats, Parker & Webb, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant Fulton Air Service.
The complaint in the above-styled case was filed on September 5, 1962, seeking recovery for a wrongful death as the result of an airplane crash which occurred near Chester, Pennsylvania, on September 5, 1960. The defendants Carl N. Maico and Fulton Air Service, Inc., have filed motions to dismiss the complaint inasmuch as the right of action set forth is alleged to be barred by the Statutes of Limitation of both the State of Pennsylvania and the State of Georgia.
The Pennsylvania death action statute provides a one-year limitation on such actions. 12 P.S.Pa. § 1603. Hartwell v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 3 Cir., 92 F.Supp. 271. Therefore, under no circumstances could this action be maintained should Pennsylvania law govern this case.
Where torts are committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the sovereignty in which the action is brought, the lex fori governs, no matter whether the right of action depends on the common law or the local statute, unless the statute which creates or confers the right limits the duration of such right to a prescribed time. O'Shields v. The Georgia Pacific Railway Company, 83 Ga. 621, 10 S.E. 268, 6 L.R.A. 152. Judge Taylor said, in Cauley v. S. E. Massengill Company, D.C., 35 F.Supp. 371:
"Statutes of limitation being designed according to the sound policy of each state for itself to put at rest litigation after the lapse of certain varying periods of time cannot be extended by the legislatures of foreign states, and I am unable to accept the argument made in support of the contention that there may be cases in which the right is so inextricably a part of the remedy that the lex loci would control the pursuit of the right after its pursuit in the forum is barred by statutes of the forum."
An action for death caused in another state may and must be brought within the time designated by the laws of such other state regardless of the time fixed by the law of the state in which the action is brought. Where, however, the statute under which the action is brought contains no special limitation or where the limitation contained therein is construed as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baron Tube Co. v. Transport Insurance Co.
...to the statute of limitations. O'Shields v. Georgia Pacific Railway Company, 1889, 83 Ga. 621, 10 S.E. 268, 6 L.R.A. 152; Blue v. Maico, N.D. Ga., 1963, 217 F.Supp. 747. The applicable Georgia statute of limitations is two years and the period begins running when the cause of action accrues......
-
Sokolowski v. Flanzer
...Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Co., 220 F.2d 152 (2d Cir.1955); Cummings v. Cowan, 390 F.Supp. 1251, 1255 (N.D.Miss.1975); Blue v. Maico, 217 F.Supp. 747 (D.Ga.1963); see generally Annot., 95 A.L.R.2d 1162, 1177-82 (1964); but see Maki v. George R. Cooke Co., 124 F.2d 663 (6th Cir.), cert. d......
-
Hudnall v. Kelly
...Georgia's statute of limitations to the action. Baron Tube Co. v. Transport Ins. Co., 365 F.2d 856, 860 (5th Cir. 1966); Blue v. Maico, 217 F.Supp. 747 (N.D.Ga.1963); O'Shields v. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co., 83 Ga. 621, 624-626, 10 S.E. 268 While plaintiff does not disagree that this is correct, ......
-
Murray v. Taylor
...may or may not be brought in their courts. It is not a matter of full faith and credit. The rule is succinctly stated in Blue v. Maico, D.C., 217 F.Supp. 747, a wrongful death action decided in the Federal District Court in Georgia, Atlanta Division: 'The general rule is that the law of the......