Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantstatutetrialdivorcestatute of limitations

plaintiffstatutedivorcestatute of limitationsrespondent

Related Cases

Clark v. Kansas City, St. L. & C.R. Co., 219 Mo. 524, 118 S.W. 40

Facts

Emma Clark, the mother of Charles Ritter, filed a wrongful death suit against the Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company after her son was killed in a train accident. Charles was a minor at the time of his death, and Emma had been awarded custody of him following her divorce from Thomas Ritter. Although Thomas was named as a coplaintiff, he refused to join the suit, leading to a demurrer from the defendant on the grounds of improper joinder and other legal deficiencies in the petition.

Emma Clark had a son, Charles Ritter (at his death an unmarried minor), by a former divorced husband, Thomas Ritter. Joining her former husband in the suit as a coplaintiff against his consent, she sues for the statutory penalty of $5,000 for the wrongful death of Charles.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the plaintiffs could properly join in the lawsuit given Thomas Ritter's refusal to participate and whether the statute of limitations barred the action.

The main proposition argued by counsel for respondent is that the statute of limitations (section 2868, supra) is a bar to the present suit because commenced more than one year after the cause of action accrued.

Rule

Under Missouri law, both parents must join in a wrongful death action for a minor child, and actions must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues.

If such deceased be a minor and unmarried, *** then by the father and mother, who may join in the suit, and each shall have an equal interest in the judgment; or if either of them be dead, then by the survivor.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory requirements for wrongful death actions and determined that the refusal of one parent to join the suit precluded the action from proceeding. The court also examined the statute of limitations and concluded that the new statute enacted in 1905 did not retroactively apply to the plaintiffs' case, which had been initiated more than a year after the child's death.

We think learned counsel has mistaken the source of the power to correct evils, if any, in the statute. He should go to the Legislature, and request that body to enlarge the remedy, and make it flexible and broad enough to include cases within the hardships put by him in the case at bar, and see what the lawmaker says; for it seems sensible that the lawmaker should first write the law, and not we.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to sustain the demurrer, concluding that the plaintiffs did not meet the statutory requirements for bringing the wrongful death action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company prevailed because the court found that the plaintiffs failed to properly join as parties and that the statute of limitations barred the action.

The demurrer therefore cannot stand on such foot.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Williams & Lee Scouting Service, Inc. v. Calvert, 452 S.W.2d 789

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296, 1972 A.M.C. 20

Steelcase, Inc. v. Crystal, 238 Conn. 571, 680 A.2d 289

Weber v. Dockray, 2 N.J.Super. 492, 64 A.2d 631

State v. Alabama Metallurgical Corp., 446 So.2d 41