Stueve v. American Honda Motors Co., Inc., 77-4170.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-4170.,77-4170. |
| Citation | 448 F. Supp. 167 |
| Parties | Doris STUEVE et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTORS COMPANY, INC., and Honda Motor Company, L.T.D. of Japan, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Jerry R. Palmer of Stumbo, Stumbo, Palmer, McCallister & Buening, James L. Grimes, Jr., of Cosgrove, Webb & Oman, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiffs.
Donald Patterson of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, Topeka, Kan., for defendants.
This action for wrongful death was brought by the widow and on behalf of the minor children of Frederick D. Stueve, and by the administratrix of his estate to recover damages caused by the alleged defects in a motorcycle manufactured by Honda Motor Company, L.T.D. of Japan, and distributed by a distributor, American Honda Motors Company, Inc. The complaint alleges pecuniary loss in the amount of $440,000.00, and seeks recovery for that amount, plus other damages described.
Defendants filed several motions which have been submitted to Judge Rogers of this Court, some have been ruled upon, some are under advisement, but one issue raised by defendants' motion (Doc. 21) has been referred to the undersigned Judge for determination. This motion seeks a declaration by the Court that the amendment to K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 60-1903, made under provisions of House Bill 2210 of the 1976 Session of the Kansas Legislature, is void, and contrary to Article 2, Section 16 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas. If this motion is sustained, defendants contend that K.S.A. 60-1903, amended by the Legislature in 1970 and limiting the amount of recovery for wrongful death to $50,000.00, plus costs and funeral expenses, and for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, should be the applicable law in this case.
Directly, it is defendants' contention that House Bill 2210 is void because it violates the provisions of Article 2, Section 16 of the Kansas Constitution which provides in part that no bill shall contain more than one subject. This constitutional provision was adopted November 5, 1974, when the voters of Kansas approved a comprehensive resolution amending many sections of Article 2 of the Kansas Constitution.
Prior to its amendment in 1974, Article 2, Section 16 of the Kansas Constitution read as follows:
"No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, and no law shall be revived or amended, unless the new act contain the entire act revived or the section or sections amended, and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed."
There exists a multitude of decisions in which the application of this provision was discussed and applied. Had the issue now before the Court been presented under the former constitutional limitation, there would be less difficulty in deciding the matter. However, the provision now applied reads as follows:
The people of Kansas in this amended section added two important provisions. It must be presumed that some important purpose prompted the amendment else so substantial a change would not have been made. The phrase "except appropriation bills and bills for revision or codification of statutes," and the phrase, "The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the acts of the legislature," were added to Section 16.
Under The Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1652, federal courts are commanded to regard as "rules of decision" the substantive "laws" of the appropriate state, except only where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States provide otherwise, and Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, decided that "laws" in this context, include not only state statutes, but also the unwritten law of a state as pronounced by its courts. King v. Order of Travelers, 333 U.S. 153, 157, 68 S.Ct. 488, 92 L.Ed. 608.
Briefs and arguments have been presented to the Court and additional research has been helpful in considering the question involved. The issue is one that properly should be ruled upon by the Kansas Supreme Court and some thought has been given to finding some device by means of which the matter could be referred to that court. No satisfactory means has been found for such a procedure to be followed and until the Kansas Legislature provides permissive legislation for that purpose, an effort along that line would only tend to delay the disposition of the claim in this case.
I have read the cases cited by the parties and have considered the Governor's message when he permitted House Bill 2210 to become law without his approval. The Governor's message offers no help in deciding the issue. If the Act was invalid, as passed by the Legislature, executive responsibility required that it be vetoed. Since, as pointed out, no legal machinery exists for testing the constitutionality of legislative enactments short of actual controversy, this Court may fairly assume that the Executive was not at all certain that the Act would not pass judicial muster, hence his recommendation that the matter should be decided by the courts.
My attention is called to the fact that two respected Kansas trial judges have considered the matter here presented and both of them upheld the constitutionality of the statute. No other judicial rulings in the state have been found in which the issue was considered.
In an opinion filed by Judge Adrian J. Allen of the Shawnee County District Court on February 7, 1977, in the case of Goff v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., Case No. 129,971, Judge Allen specifically considered this question and ruled as follows:
Chapter 303 of the Laws of Kansas of 1975 is K.S.A.1975 Supp., 60-1903.
The question also came before Judge John R. Brookens of the District Court of Jefferson County, Kansas, in a decision filed by Judge Brookens on June 16, 1976, where the statute was considered by him and its constitutionality upheld. His decision in the case of Mayer v. Board of County Commissioners, No. 13,806, reads in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patch v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
...the same statutory provisions. Graham v. White-Phillips Co., 296 U.S. 27, 56 S.Ct. 21, 80 L.Ed. 20 (1935); Stueve v. American Honda Motors Co., 448 F.Supp. 167 (D.Kan.1978). For reversal appellant argues that the Missouri statute of limitations governs because the situs of the injury was th......
-
Stueve v. American Honda Motors Co., Inc., 77-4170.
...Senior Judge Templar of this district, and on March 29 of this year, he held the amendment constitutional. Stueve v. American Honda Motors Co., Inc., 448 F.Supp. 167 (D.Kan.1978). Thus plaintiff is not to be limited to a $10,000 claim for wrongful death (the difference between the former $5......
- United States v. Wallace, Crim. No. CR-218-72-R.