Moore v. Delivery Services, Inc.
| Citation | 618 P.2d 408 |
| Decision Date | 22 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 53032,53032,1 |
| Parties | 1980 OK CIV APP 38 Veva MOORE, Appellant, v. DELIVERY SERVICES, INC., et al., Appellees |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Charles L. Owens, judge.
AFFIRMED.
Burl A. Peveto, Jr., Sulphur, for appellant.
John D. Cheek and James M. Kaufman, Oklahoma City, for appellees.
The issue here is whether the Plaintiff's first discovery of her personal injuries more than four months after an automobile accident with Defendants' vehicle tolled the running of the statute of limitations for the same period of time.
Veva Moore (Plaintiff) filed this cause of action on September 20, 1978, seeking money damages for personal injuries. In her petition, Plaintiff alleged that on May 21, 1976, the vehicle in which she was driving was struck in the side by a truck owned by Delivery Services, Inc., and negligently driven by G. L. Young (Defendants). Plaintiff further alleged that as a result of the accident she suffered serious, permanent, and painful injuries, but that she did not discover such injuries until September 29, 1976.
Defendants filed their special demurrer on October 31, 1978, asserting that the petition, on its face, alleged facts indicating that the statute of limitations had run more than three months prior to the filing of this case. The trial court sustained the Defendants' special demurrer and dismissed the case. Plaintiff has perfected this appeal.
The statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions is found in Title 12 O.S.1971, § 95(3), which provides in part as follows:
Civil actions, other than for the recovery of real property, can only be brought within the following periods, after the cause of action shall have accrued, and not afterwards
Third. Within two (2) years: ... an action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated; ....
The operative words of the statute are "after the cause of action shall have accrued." A cause of action accrues at a time when a plaintiff first could have maintained the action to a successful conclusion. Oklahoma Brick Corp. v. McCall, Okl., 497 P.2d 215 (1972). Actual loss or damages is an essential element for a cause of action grounded in negligence. Sloan v. Owens, Okl., 579 P.2d 812 (1977).
Plaintiff's petition alleges that her injuries were the result of the accident with Defendants. The accident occurred May 21, 1976. The petition was filed more than two years after the accident. The defense that a cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations is properly raised by demurrer when the petition shows on its face that its cause is barred. Moss v. Polyco, Inc., Okl., 522 P.2d 622 (1974).
Plaintiff contends however, that due to the fact that she did not discover that she had been injured until September 29, 1976, the statute of limitations was tolled.
In 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 174, p. 140, it is stated:
In cases of injuries to the person where the action is not for death, the cause of action occurs at, and statute begins to run from, the time of the injury or breach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myrick v. James
...(1951); Frazee v. Partney, 314 S.W.2d 915, 919 (Mo.1958); Jones v. Rabinowitz, 296 F.Supp. 123, 125 (1969); Moore v. Delivery Services, Inc., Okl.App., 618 P.2d 408, 409 (1980). If I were a member of our Legislature, I might conclude that medical malpractice actions of any kind, including t......
-
Chalfant v. Tubb
...to a successful conclusion. McCain v. Combined Commc'n Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 975 P.2d 865, 867 (Okla.1998); Moore v. Delivery Serv., Inc., 618 P.2d 408, 409 (Okla.Civ.App.1980). Defendants did not successfully distribute Blood Trail until 2005, and plaintiffs were not aware of the allege......
-
Lovelace v. Keohane
...time even though she was then unaware of the harm she suffered." As one of our appellate courts stated in Moore v. Delivery Services, Inc., 618 P.2d 408, 409 (Okla.Ct.App.1980): Mere ignorance of the existence of a cause of action constituting such on the part of a person in whom a cause of......
-
Williams v. Borden, Inc., 77-2109
...of the plaintiff will not toll the running of limitations. Knudson v. Weeks, 394 F.Supp. 963, 971 (W.D.Okl.); Moore v. Delivery Service, Inc., 618 P.2d 408 (Okl.Ct.Civ.App.). However, special rules apply in cases involving particular hardship or other circumstances justifying different accr......