Langley v. Bunn
| Decision Date | 05 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-787,5-787 |
| Citation | 225 Ark. 651,284 S.W.2d 319 |
| Parties | Jim LANGLEY, Appellant, v. W. A. BUNN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Cole & Epperson, Malvern, for appellant.
Wood, Chesnutt & Smith, Hot Springs, for appellees.
The issue here is whether a nonresident motorist is amenable to substituted service of process in this state under our nonresident motorist statute where the alleged cause of action arises out of an accident involving the nonresident's automobile which occurred on private property adjacent to a public highway.
Appellant is an attendant at a service station located on private property adjacent to U. S. Highway No. 67 in Malvern, Arkansas. He brought this action for scalds and burns which he allegedly suffered while servicing the automobile of appellee, a nonresident motorist, at said service station. Substituted service was obtained on the Secretary of State as agent for appellee under our nonresident motorist statute [Act 199 of 1949] which now appears as Ark.Stats. §§ 27-342.1 to 27-342.3. By special appearance, appellee moved to quash the service because the complaint showed on its face that the alleged cause of action did not occur upon the public highways; and that appellee was neither authorized to nor doing business in Arkansas. This appeal is from the order of the Circuit Court sustaining the motion to quash.
In reference to the point at issue Sec. 27-342.1, supra, provides: '* * * the acceptance by a nonresident owner * * * of the rights and privileges * * * to drive or operate * * * a motor vehicle upon the public highway of [this] State * * * shall be deemed equivalent to the appointment * * * of the Secretary of the State of Arkansas * * * to be the true and lawful attorney and agent of such nonresident * * * upon whom may be served all lawful process in any action * * * growing out of any accident or collision in which said nonresident * * * may be involved while operating a motor vehicle on such highway * * *.' By Sec. 27-341.1 the term 'Public Highways', as used in the service statute, is defined to mean '* * * any public highway within the borders of the State of Arkansas including byways, county highways, state highways, roads or highways in National Parks, and roads or highways in military reservations, whether used conditionally or unconditionally by the public.' This is Section 1 of Act 417 of 1953, enacted following the decision in Camden v. Harris, D.C., 109 F.Supp. 311, which held the service statute did not apply to roads on U. S. Army posts or reservations.
In Kerr v. Greenstein, 213 Ark. 447, 212 S.W.2d 1, we held that our nonresident motorist service statute is to be strictly construed because it is in derogation of the common law. When the above mentioned statutes are so construed together, it is apparent that the Legislature intended that effective service of process may be had under the nonresident motorist statute when the nonresident is involved in an accident or collision while operating a motor vehicle on any public highway or byway in this state whether same be maintained by the county, state or United States, and whether used conditionally or unconditionally by the public. This has been the interpretation placed on similar statutes by the courts of other states.
In those jurisdictions with statutes like our own, the courts have uniformly held that valid service thereunafter is limited to actions involving accidents or collisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raspante v. Trans. Supply & Management, Inc.
...on private property, it is unconstitutional, citing--Blake v. Salmonson, 188 Misc. 97, 99, 67 N.Y.S.2d 607, 609; Langley v. Bunn, 225 Ark. 651, 653, 284 S.W.2d 319; and People v. Tracey, 6 Misc.2d 681, 167 N.Y.S.2d It is an elementary rule of statutory construction that a statute should be ......
-
State ex rel. Boyer v. Weinstein, 31681
...Co. v. Parkhill Truck Co., 383 Ill. 569, 50 N.E.2d 836, 148 A.L.R. 1208; Harris v. Hanson et ux., D.C., 75 F.Supp. 481; Langley v. Bunn, 225 Ark. 651, 284 S.W.2d 319; Boulay v. Pontikes et al., D.C., 93 F.Supp. 826. In the latter case, the Missouri Statute was involved, and in disposing of ......
-
Hayashida v. Second Judicial Dist. Court In and For Washoe County
...actions for damages growing out of the use of the highways as indicated by the specific words which they follow.' Accord: Langley v. Bunn, 225 Ark. 651, 284 S.W.2d 319; Ellis v. Georgia Marble Co., 191 Tenn. 229, 232 S.W.2d 45; O'Sullivan v. Brown, 5 Cir., 171 F.2d 199 (accident happened on......
-
Brashers v. Jefferson
...involving accidents occurring on the public highways and did not apply to accidents occurring on private property. Langley v. Bunn, 225 Ark. 651, 284 S.W.2d 319 (1955), Finn v. Schreiber, 35 F.Supp. 638 (D.N.Y.1940), and Walton v. Stephens, 119 F.Supp. 1 (D.Va.1954). It was contrariwise dec......