Hansen v. Watson
| Decision Date | 16 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1605--III,1605--III |
| Citation | 16 Wn.App. 891,559 P.2d 1375 |
| Parties | Lois J. HANSEN, Appellant, v. Clayton S. WATSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Southwell and Malott & Southwell, P.S., for appellant. C.
E. Huppin and Huppin, Ewing & Anderson, P.S., for respondent.
The plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her personal injury claim. The court held the statute of limitations had expired because of her failure to file her complaint within 90 days of the service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant. RCW 4.16.170.1 We reverse.
The pertinent dates are:
December 7, 1971--Accident and injury.
October 3, 1972--Defendant served with the summons and complaint.
December 6, 1974--Original summons and complaint filed.
May 8, 1975--Defendant served his answer on plaintiff alleging as an affirmative defense the statute of limitations and moved for summary judgment of dismissal based upon the running of the statute of limitations.
May 26, 1975--Order granting summary judgment entered, dismissing plaintiff's complaint.
The statute of limitations for actions involving injury to the person requires that they be commenced within 3 years. RCW 4.16.080(2). 2 This action was tentatively commenced October 3, 1972, with the service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant, CR 3(a), 3 and fully commenced with the filing on December 6, 1974. Since both the service and the filing were accomplished before the statutory period of limitation had expired, I.e., within 3 years from the date of the injury, the issue of tolling tha statutory period does not arise. RCW 4.16.170 is not applicable. Seamens v. Walgren, 82 Wash.2d 771, 776, 514 P.2d 166 (1973). Under these circumstances it is immaterial that the service and filing were not accomplished within 90 days of each other.
Citizens Interested in the Transfusion of Yesteryear v. Board of Regents of the University of Washington, 86 Wash.2d 323, 329, 544 P.2d 740 (1976), is distinguishable upon its facts; the action was tentatively commenced when the complaint was filed, but the statute of limitation had expired without service upon the defendant. Consequently, the 90-day provision of RCW 4.16.170 was applicable. Cf. Fox v. Groff, Wash.App., 559 P.2d 1376 (1977).
Judgment reversed.
1 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kramer v. J.I. Case Mfg. Co.
...within the limitation period. See Collins v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 29 Wash.App. 415, 418-19, 628 P.2d 855 (1981); Hansen v. Watson, 16 Wash.App. 891, 892-93, 559 P.2d 1375, review denied, 88 Wash.2d 1018 (1977). Thus, so long as the statute of limitations has not expired, "it is immaterial......
-
Comer v. Colistro
... ... complaint on July 3 1, 2009. Colistro admits that she was ... personally served on September 1, 2011. As we wrote in ... Hansen v. Watson, 16 Wn.App. 891, 892-93, 559 P.2d ... 1375 (1977), "Since both service and filing were ... accomplished before the statutory ... ...
-
Comer v. Colistro
...complaint onJuly 31, 2009. Colistro admits that she was personally served on September 1, 2011. As we wrote in Hansen v. Watson, 16 Wn. App. 891, 892-93, 559 P.2d 1375 (1977), "Since both service and filing were accomplished before the statutory period of limitation had expired, . . . the i......
-
G 3 Properties, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of Yakima County, G-3
...v. Board of Regents, 86 Wash.2d 323, 544 P.2d 740 (1976); Fox v. Groff, 16 Wash.App. 893, 559 P.2d 1376 (1977); Hansen v. Watson, 16 Wash.App. 891, 559 P.2d 1375 (1977), does not apply. 1 Rather, the general rule is that once the time for filing an action has expired, the effect of such joi......
-
§3.6 Analysis
...period, the plaintiff has properly commenced the action. Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 776, 514 P.2d 166 (1973); Hansen v. Watson, 16 Wn.App. 891, 893, 559 P.2d 1375, review denied, 88 Wn.2d 1018 The 90-day period in which the plaintiff must serve and file commences on the date the plai......