JM Blythe Motor Lines Corporation v. Blalock
| Citation | 310 F.2d 77 |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 19694.,19694. |
| Parties | J. M. BLYTHE MOTOR LINES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Jean Blanchette BLALOCK, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Fred Patrox, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
R. J. Randolph, Stuart, Fla., for appellee.
Before JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges, and CARSWELL, District Judge.
The appellee, Jean Blanchette Blalock, invoking federal jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, brought an action against J. M. Blythe Motor Lines Corporation and Richard B. Kingery claiming damages for personal injuries resulting from a highway collision between an automobile in which she was a passenger and a truck of the defendant corporation negligently operated by its employee Kingery. The complaint fixed the place of the collision as on Pelham Parkway in the City and State of New York, and fixed the time of the collision as December 4, 1956. The complaint was filed on November 29, 1960.
The Corporation and Kingery answered, denying negligence and asserting that the collision was caused by the negligence of the driver of the car in which she was a passenger. The answer also asserted:
"That as and for a further additional and affirmative defense, the Defendants state the above cause is regulated by the Statute of Limitations as set out in Section 49 of the New York Practices Act which statute limits actions to three (3) years for personal injuries arising out of negligence and that it affirmatively appears from the pleadings herein that the within accident occurred more than three (3) years last past since the filing of the instant suit."
On the same day as the filing of the answer, the Corporation and Kingery also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, "for the reason that it affirmatively appears that the Statute of Limitations has run * * *" The motion was denied. By a pre-trial stipulation it was agreed, among other things, that "The pleadings raising the issues presented are Plaintiff's complaint and Defendants' answer." The stipulation contained no specific reference to limitations. It was stated, in the stipulation, that "There are no unusual issues of law." The case was tried, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $32,250, and judgment on the verdict was entered. A motion for a new trial was filed in which it was charged that error was committed by the court's denial of judgment on the pleadings because of the bar of limitations. The motion was denied. This appeal followed and the question presented by the appeal is whether the court should have held that the action was barred by limitation. A Florida statute, similar to many, contains the following:
"When the cause of action has arisen in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action thereon cannot be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, no action thereon shall be maintained against him in this state." Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10.
The position of the appellee is that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and that the defendants did not carry the burden of proof with respect to the defense of limitation. Decisions of state courts are cited for this proposition. While the state statute of limitations as a bar to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Civil Action No. H-05-3912.
...the manner by which it is asserted and established is a matter of procedure and federal principles control." J.M. Blythe Motor Lines Corp. v. Blalock, 310 F.2d 77, 78 (5th Cir.1962). Under Texas law, a party defending on ground of statute of limitations bears the burden of proof on this iss......
-
Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. City of Atlanta, 1:93-CV-1341-RHH.
...show that no relief can be granted." United States v. Yates, 774 F.Supp. 1368, 1371 (M.D.Ga.1991) (citing J.M. Blythe Motor Lines Corp. v. Blalock, 310 F.2d 77 (5th Cir.1962)). B. Motion for Summary This Court will entertain summary judgment motions "after adequate time for discovery and up......
-
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
...1977); Joe E. Freund, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 370 F.2d 924, 924 (5th Cir. 1967); J. M. Blythe Motor Lines Corporation v. Blalock, 310 F.2d 77, 78 (5th Cir. 1962); Herron v. Herron, 255 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir. 2. The "Tying" Counterclaim The essence of Avondale's counterc......
-
Proffitt v. Wainwright
...any uncertainty it presented was resolvable by reference to matters within the judicial notice of the court, J. M. Blythe Motor Lines Corp. v. Blalock, 310 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1972) (federal courts will take judicial notice of state laws without requiring proof thereof), the district judge di......
-
Judicial notice on appeal: why all the fuss?
...sit to determine if provision is made for survivorship of a given cause of action); see also J. M. Blythe Motor Lines Corp. v. Blalock, 310 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1972); Ubuy Holdings, Inc. v. Gladstone, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (both (40) See The Evidence Project, Professor Paul R.......