Seibert v. Cathey
| Decision Date | 26 March 1987 |
| Citation | 216 N.J.Super. 197,523 A.2d 267 |
| Parties | Cindy SEIBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael CATHEY and Stuart Salvato, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Gary M. Schwartz, East Brunswick, for plaintiff-appellant (Schwartz & Schiappa, attorneys; Joseph P. Schiappa, on the brief).
Sharon Handrock Moore, Clinton, for defendants-respondents (Gebhardt & Kiefer, attorneys; Sharon Handrock Moore and Richard P. Cushing, on the brief).
Before Judges MORTON I. GREENBERG, R.S. COHEN and GRUCCIO.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MORTON I. GREENBERG, P.J.A.D.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of September 16, 1985 granting summary judgment to defendants on the ground that plaintiff's action is barred by the two years' limitations period in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2.
The facts material to this appeal are undisputed. Plaintiff Cindy Seibert was born on September 9, 1964. On August 8, 1981 she suffered injuries while a passenger in a vehicle owned by defendant Stuart Salvato and operated by defendant Michael Cathey when the vehicle was involved in a one-car accident. Consequently, on January 21, 1985, when she was more than 20 years old, she brought this action against defendants to recover damages for her injuries.
This case is controlled by Tyson v. Groze, 172 N.J.Super. 314, 411 A.2d 1170 (App.Div.1980), which held that the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21 permitting a person injured during infancy to bring an action to recover damages within two years of becoming 21 were modified by N.J.S.A. 9:17B-1 et seq., lowering the age of majority to 18 years. Thus, a person injured while less than 18 years of age was required to bring an action for damages by her 20th birthday.
Plaintiff seeks to avoid the broad ruling in Tyson v. Groze by urging that we construed N.J.S.A. 9:17B-2e to continue the 21 year old age of majority for statute of limitations purposes for persons under 21 on January 1, 1973. But the difficulty with this contention is that we indicated that the 21 year old majority period would apply only as to causes of action accrued prior to January 1, 1973. We did so for in the absence of a savings clause for causes of action outstanding on January 1, 1973, "it could have otherwise been argued that a person between 18 and 21 on January 1, 1973 would have had only two years from having become 18 to be sued or be barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2." 172 N.J.Super. at 317, 411 A.2d 1170. That construction would have unfairly barred on January 1, 1973 complaints by persons 20 years old or more on that day for causes of action accruing more than two years earlier. Accordingly, we recognized that the Legislature had provided a transitional provision for causes of action accruing before January 1, 1973.
We also indicated that perhaps N.J.S.A. 9:17B-1 et seq. would be "construed to allow persons under 23 on January 1, 1973 to have until they became 23 to sue without being barred." 172 N.J.Super. 318, n. 1, 411 A.2d 1170. That construction would have saved a person who previously had until he was 23 to bring an action from being barred by N.J.S.A. 9:17B-1 et seq. on January 1, 1973 for causes of action previously accruing. Thus, a person who became 22 years old in December 1972 under that construction would have until her 23rd birthday in December 1973 to bring an action for injuries suffered when she was under 21 years of age. Such a construction would have been transitional in character.
It is evident that the cause of action here which arose in 1981 cannot be saved by the transitional protection of causes of action accruing before January 1, 1973. Plaintiff became 18 years old on September 9, 1982 and thus this action should have been brought by September 9, 1984. As it was brought on January 21, 1985 it is barred.
We recognize that this court in McLaughlin v. Metzner, 201 N.J.Super. 51, 54, n. 2, 492 A.2d 696 (App.Div.1985), citing Tyson v. Groze, said that N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21, insofar as it allowed the running of the statute of limitations to be measured from when a plaintiff became 21, "was not modified by N.J.S.A. 9:17B-1 et seq., which lowered the age of majority from 21 years to 18 years." We do not agree with this statement which cannot be reconciled with the actual result in Tyson v. Groze. 1 See also Hadden v Eli Lilly and Co., 208 N.J.Super. 716, 719, 506...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Auerbach Chevrolet Corp.
...accrued prior to said date; In Tyson v. Groze, 172 N.J.Super. 314, 411 A.2d 1170 (App.Div.1980) and again in Seibert v. Cathey, 216 N.J.Super. 197, 523 A.2d 267 (App.Div.1987), we held that the import of this statute was to serve as a transitional protection for persons who were 20 years ol......
-
Green v. Auerbach Chevrolet Corp.
...file complaint until plaintiff attained age twenty-three), certif. denied, 104 N.J. 441, 517 A.2d 431 (1986); Seibert v. Cathey, 216 N.J.Super. 197, 199-200, 523 A.2d 267 (1987) (applying Tyson, supra, to dismiss complaint for personal injuries plaintiff sustained at age seventeen when comp......
-
Abboud v. Viscomi
...or apparently, insubstantial or transient, assuming the other discovery requirements were met as well. See Seibert v. Cathey, 216 N.J. Super. 197, 201, 523 A.2d 267 (App.Div.1987) (subsequent worsening of injuries did not delay accrual); Silverman v. Lathrop, supra, 168 N.J. Super. at 339-4......
-
Apgar v. Lederle Laboratories, a Div. of American Cyanamid Co.
...in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21 should be deemed modified to age eighteen by virtue of N.J.S.A. 9:17B-1 to -3. Compare Siebert v. Cathey, 216 N.J.Super. 197, 523 A.2d 267 (App.Div.1987) and Tyson v. Groze, 172 N.J.Super. 314, 411 A.2d 1170 (App.Div.1980) (both holding that the statutory lowering of th......