Connelly v. Paul Ruddy's Equipment Repair & Service Co.

• Decision Date: 30 August 1972
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: 388 Mich. 146,200 N.W.2d 70
• Parties: Alice Louise CONNELLY and Michigan Mutual Liability Co., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PAUL RUDDY'S EQUIPMENT REPAIR & SERVICE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 70

200 N.W.2d 70

388 Mich. 146

Alice Louise CONNELLY and Michigan Mutual Liability Co., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PAUL RUDDY'S EQUIPMENT REPAIR & SERVICE COMPANY et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Aug. 30, 1972.

Johnson, Campbell & Moesta, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants

Fischer, Franklin & Ford, Detroit, for appellee Paul Ruddy's Equipment Repair & Service Co.

Louis Rosenzweig, Detroit, for appellee Norwest Machinery Movers Co.

Harvey, Kruse & Westen, John A. Kruse, Detroit, for appellee Detroit Engineering Machine Co.

Before the Entire Bench.

BRENNAN, Justice.

THE CASE

This is an action for damages for personal injury, resulting from an industrial accident which occurred on May 12, 1965. Plaintiff Connelly commenced her action in circuit court on May 10, 1968.

Defendants moved for accelerated judgment based upon the bar of the statute of limitations. The motions were denied at circuit, but upon leave granted, the circuit court was summarily reversed by the Court of Appeals.

Since we must decide whether the motions for accelerated judgment should or should not have been granted, we must assume that plaintiff will be able at trial to prove the allegations contained in her complaint.

THE FACTS

Thus viewed, the facts are these: In 1948, defendant Detroit Engineering purchased a Cleveland press. In 1964, Detroit Engineering rented the press to plaintiff's employer, Wolverine Industries.

Between February 1, 1965, and March 15, 1965, defendant Paul Ruddy's Equpment overhauled the press. Defendant Norwest Machinery Movers delivered the press back to Wolverine Industries on March 15, 1965.

Negligent acts are alleged with respect to all defendants in preparing, designing, repairing and delivering the press.

It is not disputed that the press has not been in the possession of any of the defendants since March 15, 1965, more than 3 years prior to the institution of the present action.

THE STATUTES

Defendants' motion is predicated upon these sections of the Revised Judicature Act:

'Sec 5805

'No person may bring or maintain any action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to himself or to someone through whom he claims, he commences the action within the periods of time prescribed by this section. * * *

'(7) The period of limitations is 3 years for all other actions to recover damages for injuries to persons and property.' M.C.L.A. § 600.5805; M.S.A. § 27A.5805.

'Sec 5827

'Except as otherwise expressly provided, the period of limitations runs from

the time the claim accrues. The claim accrues at the time provided in sections 5829 to 5838, and in cases not covered by these sections the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.' M.C.L.A. § 600.5827; M.S.A. § 27A.5827.

DISCUSSION

Prior to the adoption of RJA, it was settled that a cause of action accrues at the moment when the plaintiff could first commence a lawsuit upon it.

In the case of an action for damages arising out of tortious injury to a person, the cause of action accrues when all of the elements of the cause of action have occurred and can be alleged in a proper complaint.

Those elements are four in number.

(1) The existence of a legal duty by defendant toward plaintiff.

(2) The breach of such duty.

(3) A proximate causal relationship between the breach of such duty and an injury to the plaintiff.

(4) The plaintiff must have suffered damages.

Defendants argue that the statutory provision '* * * the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results' means, in the context of this case, that claims against them are barred, since breach of duty claimed against them must have occurred prior to March 15, 1965, more than three years before action was commenced.

Defendants contend that the word Wrong refers to an act of carelessness or negligence in repairing or handling the press. By their view, the word Damage refers to the personal injury suffered by the plaintiff on May 12, 1965, the day that the press malfunctioned.

Defendants claim that interpreting the word Wrong to mean Actionable wrong, tort, harm or Injury is to broaden the meaning of that word, and render the word Damage entirely meaningless.

It is argued by the plaintiff that under such a view, her claim is barred before she was hurt. She would never have been able to commence an action at all.

By that interpretation, plaintiff says, the statute is not one of limitation but one of abolition, completely destroying her cause of action before it arises.

Defendants counter by pointing out that the statute of limitations is a statute of repose, designed to protect defendants from stale claims; that this is an industrial state and it is therefore...