Carter v. Cross
| Decision Date | 24 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2052,78-2052 |
| Citation | 373 So.2d 81 |
| Parties | Jennie CARTER, Appellant, v. Justine E. CROSS, Sam Cross and Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gerald Piken and Barry M. Snyder, North Miami, for appellant.
Pyszka, Kessler & Adams and Thomas M. Carney, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
The sole issue presented for review by this appeal is centered on when a cause of action for personal injury sounding in negligence and arising from an automobile accident accrues for purposes of the statute of limitations under Section 95.11(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1977). We hold that the action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run from the time the injury sustained was first inflicted on the plaintiff and not from the time the full extent of such injuries has been ascertained. This result is not changed by the fact that at the time the injury was first inflicted, the plaintiff had not reached the no-fault threshold under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act (§ 627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1973)).
The facts of this case are undisputed. On May 18, 1978, the plaintiff Jennie Carter filed a complaint sounding in negligence for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident with the defendant Justine E. Cross who was operating an automobile owned by the defendant Sam Cross and insured by the defendant Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Company. According to the plaintiff's complaint as amended, the accident allegedly occurred on March 8, 1974, wherein the plaintiff was injured, but it was not until June 3, 1974, that the plaintiff met the no-fault threshold requirements of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act (§ 627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1973)) by ascertaining that her injury was permanent. The action was brought in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.
The trial court dismissed the action upon the defendants' motion as barred by the applicable four year statute of limitations (§ 95.11(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1977)). The plaintiff appeals contending that the statute did not begin to run, as the trial court held, from the date she was injured in the automobile accident, but, instead, began to run from the time she learned her injury was permanent. We cannot agree and affirm.
The law is well-settled that "(g)enerally, in actions for personal injuries resulting from the wrongful act or negligence of another, the cause of action accrues and the statute (of limitations) begins to run from the time the injury was first inflicted and not from the time the full extent of the damages sustained has been ascertained." Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Ford, 92 So.2d 160, 164 (Fla.1957). In the instant case, the amended complaint clearly alleges that on March 8, 1974, the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident which was allegedly caused by the negligent act of the defendant Justine Cross. On May 18, 1978, or more than four years subsequent to this accident, the instant lawsuit was filed. As such, the action was barred by the applicable four year statute of limitations in negligence cases. § 95.11(3) (a), Fla.Stat. (1977). The fact that the full extent of such injuries was not allegedly discovered by the plaintiff until June 3, 1974, when it was learned that such injuries were permanent, does not change this result under the controlling Florida law.
The plaintiff urges, however, that an exception be created to the above rule where, as here, the plaintiff at the time of the initial infliction of injury has not reached the no-fault threshold for recovering damages under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act (§ 627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1973)). It is argued that the statute of limitations should begin to run in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodwin v. Bayer Corp.
...denied, 449 U.S. 1110, 101 S.Ct. 918, 66 L.Ed.2d 839 (1981); McEntire v. Malloy, 288 Ark. 582, 707 S.W.2d 773 (1986); Carter v. Cross, 373 So.2d 81 (Fla.App.1979); Dowling v. Lester, 74 Ga.App. 290, 39 S.E.2d 576 (1946); Ralphs v. City of Spirit Lake, 98 Idaho 225, 560 P.2d 1315 (1977); Cau......
-
Jones v. Trustees of Bethany College
...denied, 449 U.S. 1110, 101 S.Ct. 918, 66 L.Ed.2d 839 (1981); McEntire v. Malloy, 288 Ark. 582, 707 S.W.2d 773 (1986); Carter v. Cross, 373 So.2d 81 (Fla.App.1979); Dowling v. Lester, 74 Ga.App. 290, 39 S.E.2d 576 (1946); Ralphs v. City of Spirit Lake, 98 Idaho 225, 560 P.2d 1315 (1977); Cau......
-
Gagliardi v. Flack
...Frontier Transit Authority, 101 Misc.2d 92, 420 N.Y.S.2d 692 (1979), aff'd 78 A.D.2d 775, 435 N.Y.S.2d 551 (1980), Carter v. Cross, 373 So.2d 81 (Fla.App., 1979), cert. den. 385 So.2d 755 (Fla., 1980), Dinesen v. Towle, 3 Kan.App.2d 505, 597 P.2d 264 (1979), rev. den. 226 Kan. 792 (1979), a......
-
Savini v. University of Hawaii
...Cir.1988); Childers v. United States, 442 F.2d 1299, 1303 (5th Cir. 1971); Oahu Ry. & Land Co., 73 F.Supp. at 708; Carter v. Cross, 373 So.2d 81, 82 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1979); Stephens v. Dixon, 449 Mich. 531, 536 N.W.2d 755, 759 (1995); Jackson v. L.P. Transp., 72 N.Y.2d 975, 534 N.Y.S.2d 36......