Jaime v. Neurological Hospital Ass'n of Kansas City, 56710
| Decision Date | 08 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 56710,No. 1,56710,1 |
| Parties | Anthony JAIME and Aurora Jaime, Appellants, v. NEUROLOGICAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION OF KANSAS CITY et al., Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shirkey, Paul Crider, Jr., Kansas City, for appellants.
William H. Sanders, David C. Trowbridge, Kansas City, for respondent, G. Wilse Robinson, M.D.
Guy A. Magruder, Jr., Kansas City, for respondent, Neurological Hospital Ass'n of Kansas City; Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi, Kansas City, of counsel.
This is a medical malpractice case and the issue is whether or not plaintiffs' amended petition filed after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, § 516.140, V.A.M.S., 1969, contains sufficient allegations so as to bring it within the insanity savings provision of § 516.170, V.A.M.S., as to the respondents, G. Wilse Robinson, Albert E. Fulton, and Neurological Hospital Association of Kansas City, who were first made parties to the action by the amended petition.
Respondents filed answers to the amended petition asserting the two-year statute of limitations, § 516.140, as an affirmative defense and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss as to respondents on the ground that § 516.140 barred the action as to them. The trial court sustained respondents' motion to dismiss with prejudice on the ground that § 516.140 barred the action and designated its order as a final judgment for purposes of appeal in accordance with Civil Rule 82.06, V.A.M.R., (now Rule 81.06, V.A.M.R.), and plaintiffs appeal. The damages sought are in excess of thirty thousand dollars and the appeal was filed prior to January 1, 1972. This court has jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3, Const. Mo.1945, V.A.M.S.; § 477.040, V.A.M.S., 1969.
In Count I of the amended petition, Anthony Jaime, and husband of Aurors Jaime, seeks damages for medical expenses and loss of services allegedly resulting from the injuries to his wife. Count II is the damage suit of Aurora Jaime.
Count I, paragraph 9, alleges, inter alia, that 'At all times herein while Aurora Jaime was hospitalized and while she was under the care, treatment and observation of the defendants, and each of them, she was kept under regularly prescribed sedation and by reason thereof, together with her mental disability was unable to understand or appreciate the consequences of her act or acts and in particular the danger and hazards of using matches and smoking cigarettes while under sedation and the attendant hazard that . . . Aurora Jaime might fall asleep or be unable to protect herself from injury . . ..'
Paragraph 6 of Count I alleges, 'Prior to December 31, 1963, the plaintiff Anthony Jaime did employ the services of defendants and each of them individually and as co-partners, for reasonable compensation paid and to be paid to treat Aurora Jaime for severe and disabling mental disturbance and disability, known and described as Schizophrenic reaction, chronic undifferentiated type which employment the defendants, and each of them, agreed to accept and discharge, and from which condition Aurora Jaime has continuously suffered to present date and whereby this petition is amended in accordance with V.A.M.S. 516.170.'
In Count II, Aurora Jaime adopted all of the allegations of Count I except those in which the damages to the husband are alleged.
Sec. 516.170, V.A.M.S., provides, 'If any person entitled to bring an action in sections 516.100 to 516.370 specified, at the time the cause of action accrued be . . . insane, . . . such persons shall be at liberty to bring such actions within the respective times in sections 516.100 to 516.370 limited after such disability is removed.'
Respondents' motion to dismiss asserted that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations as set forth in § 516.140, V.A.M.S., and it is evident from the amended petition itself that the alleged events upon which the suit is based occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the amended petition on November 29, 1968.
The motion to dismiss admits, for the purpose of the motion, all facts well pleaded. Molumby v. Shapleigh Hardware Co., Mo.App., 395 S.W.2d 221, 225, and in considering a petition on a motion to dismiss the court must construe it liberally and favorably to plaintiff, giving him the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the facts stated. Hall v. Smith, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 52, 55.
In Fendler v. Roy, 331 Mo. 1083, 58 S.W.2d 459, loc. cit. 464, this court said, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sampson v. W. F. Enterprises, Inc.
...by the plaintiff's pleading." McLeod v. Marion Laboratories, Inc., 600 S.W.2d 656(2) (Mo.App.1980); Jaime v. Neurological Hospital Ass'n. of Kansas City, 488 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Mo.1973). The defense of contributory negligence is not irrefutably established by the present petition. Although it......
-
Gaines v. Monsanto Co., 46216
...plaintiffs, giving them the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the facts stated therein. Jaime v. Neurological Hospital Ass'n of Kansas City, 488 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Mo.1973). The facts alleged in the petition should be assumed to be true. Hunt v. Dallmeyer, 517 S.W.2d 720, 723 (M......
-
Emerson v. Southern Ry. Co.
...of a spouse or parent is not subject to the tolling statute of the infant or incompetent. See, e. g., Jaime v. Neurological Hospital Ass'n of Kansas City, 488 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.1973); Shack v. Holland, 89 Misc.2d 78, 389 N.Y.S.2d 988 (1976); Simpson v. City of Abilene, 388 S.W.2d 760 A wife's ......
-
Defino v. Civic Center Corp.
...plaintiffs, giving them the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the facts stated therein. Jaime v. Neurological Hospital Ass'n of Kansas City, 488 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Mo.1973). The well pleaded facts alleged in the petition should be assumed to be true. Stiffelman v. Abrams, 655 S.......