 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fleming v. Jackson11/23/2005
Submitted: November 10, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 23rd day of November 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court as follows:
1. On July 6, 2004, the plaintiffs-below and appellees, Irene Jackson, Tiffany Hunter and Jamiyah Griffin, filed a complaint in Superior Court against the defendants-below and appellant, Serana Fleming and Sebron Fleming for injuries resulting from an automobile collision that occurred on July 3, 2002. Fleming filed a motion to dismiss in Superior Court claiming that the two-year statute of limitations period for personal injury claims pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8119 barred Jackson's suit because the suit was not filed by Saturday July 3, 2004. A Superior Court judge denied the motion and held that Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 6(a) extended the time period permitting Jackson to file her suit on July 6, 2004. Fleming, claiming that Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 6(a) is inapplicable, filed this interlocutory appeal. Because the last day to file this timely suit under 10 Del. C. § 8119 was a Saturday, Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 6(a) extended the statute of limitations period to the next day the Prothonotary was open, July 6, 2004. Accordingly, the trial judge's ruling is AFFIRMED.
2. Fleming argues Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 6(a) cannot be applied to extend the statute of limitations. Citing Bivens v. Mattero, Fleming suggests that courts may recognize exceptions to the limitations period only when
(1) the court prevented the plaintiff from exercising a legal right; and (2) the plaintiff acted with due diligence. In response Jackson argues that Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 6(a) appropriately tolled the two-year statute of limitations period provided under 10 Del. C. § 8119 because the last day of the limitations period was a Saturday.
3. The Superior Court's construction of a statute is a determination of law and is reviewed de novo. This Court will determine whether the Superior Court judge "erred in formulating or applying legal precepts."
4. Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 516(a), the Superior Court Rules govern practice and procedure with respect to the "commencement, trial, hearing and determination of civil actions in the Superior Court." Under 10 Del. C. § 516(c), once rules are adopted, they "supersede all statutory provisions in conflict or inconsistent therewith." Further, 10 Del. C. § 516(d) provides that any inconsistency or conflict between a court rule and a statute be resolved in favor of the court rule.
5. The relevant statute here, 10 Del. C. § 8119, provides that " o action for the recovery of damages upon a claim for alleged personal injuries shall be brought after the expiration of two years from the date upon which it is claimed that such alleged injuries were sustained." The computation of the two-year period, however, is governed by Delaware Superior Court Rule 6(a) which reads:
In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, by order of court, or by statute, the day of the act, event or default after which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday or Sunday, or other legal holiday, or other day on which the office of the Prothonotary is closed, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day on which the office of the Prothonotary is open.
6. Here, the accident occurred on July 3, 2002; therefore, the last day to file timely under 10 Del. C. § 8119 would be July 3, 200
Page 1 2 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|