 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodenburg v. Lathrop12/12/2001
ding money for Hart's trips to North Dakota; and (e) failing to warn Rodenburg or law enforcement authorities of Hart's intentions and actions.
Parker and Lathrop moved to dismiss the Rodenburgs' negligence claim asserting the action was beyond the scope of the applicable statute of limitations. Oponski raised the same issue as an affirmative defense in her answer to the plaintiffs' petition. By agreement, the district court treated Oponski's answer as the equivalent of a motion to dismiss. Following hearing, the court concluded the Rodenburgs' petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it was filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations established in Iowa Code section 614.1(2).
The Rodenbergs appealed contending first, that the discovery rule should apply to section 614.1(2) and toll the statute of limitations; and second, that the statute of limitations should be tolled according to the doctrine of fraudulent concealment.
The Rodenburgs have voluntarily dismissed their appeals against defendants Patrick Parker and Amelia Oponski. Therefore, the only issue on appeal concerns the timeliness of their negligence action against the remaining defendant, Mark Lathrop.
II. Scope of Review
Our review of a district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 4; Henry v. Shober, 566 N.W.2d 190, 191 (Iowa 1997). A district court's order sustaining or overruling a motion to dismiss does not depend on the court's discretion. Venard v. Winter, 524 N.W.2d 163, 165 (Iowa 1994). The ruling must rest on legal grounds and is subject to review by us. Id. (citing Weber v. Madison, 251 N.W.2d 523, 525 (Iowa 1977)). The district court's findings of fact are binding on appeal unless not supported by substantial evidence. McCormick v. Meyer, 582 N.W.2d 141, 144 (Iowa 1998). We are not bound by the district court's application of legal principles or its conclusions of law. Id.
III. Analysis
Statutes of limitations are legislatively prescribed restrictions on the time period in which a plaintiff may initiate a particular cause of action. The underlying purpose of Iowa Code section 614.1(2), like any other statute of limitations, is well established:
Statutes of limitations are primarily designed to assure fairness to defendants. Such statutes "promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared." Moreover, the courts ought to be relieved of the burden of trying stale claims when a plaintiff has slept on his rights. Wetter v. Dubuque Aerie No. 568 of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, 588 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted).
The applicable statue of limitations is determined by the nature of the cause of action, which is in turn determined by the rights sued upon. Venard, 524 N.W.2d at 165 (Iowa 1994) (citing Sandbulte v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 343 N.W.2d 457, 462 (Iowa 1984)). The Rodenbergs' claims against defendant Lathrop seek damages for personal injuries and spousal consortium suffered as a result of the defendant's alleged negligence. Therefore, the plaintiffs' action for personal injury is restricted by the time limits set forth in Iowa Code section 614.1(2). This section provides:
Actions may be brought within the times herein limited, respectively, after their causes accrue, and not afterwards, except when otherwise specifically declared. . .
I. Injuries to person or reputation - relative rights - statute penalty. Those founded on injuries to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|