 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fleming v. Jackson11/23/2005
4. July 3, 2004, however, fell on a Saturday and thus was not included in the computation of the two-year period under the rule. Further, Monday July 5, 2004 was a recognized legal holiday and was likewise not included in the computation. Thus, Tuesday July 6, 2004, was the last day Jackson could file her case. Jackson properly filed her case on July 6, 2004 and her claim is not barred by the two-year statute of limitations period.
7. Fleming relies on Bivens for her claim that Delaware Superior Court Rule 6(a) does not apply here. In Bivens, the plaintiff, Jacqueline Bivens, brought suit in the Superior Court for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. There, as here, 10 Del. C. ยง 8119 provided for a two-year statute of limitations period. The final day of the two-year period was Saturday, March 15, 2003. Bivens attempted to use the Saturday filing procedures on March 15, 2003 but was unable to gain entry to the courthouse. Bivens then filed her suit on Monday, March 17, 2003, the next day the courthouse was open. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the statute of limitations barred the lawsuit. The Superior Court denied the motion for summary judgment. While recognizing that statutes of limitations are generally to be strictly construed the court stated:
courts have inherent authority under certain circumstances to recognize implied exceptions where legislative intent is not contravened. Such exceptions are warranted where an authority such as a court or its staff prevents the exercise of a legal right by a plaintiff. To justify such an exception, a party must show that the action of the court itself prevented the exercise of the right and that plaintiff acted with due diligence.
Finding that Bivens exercised due diligence in attempting to file her suit on Saturday, and that the locked courthouse doors made filing an impossibility, the court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
8. Fleming suggests that because Jackson did not attempt to file on Saturday, July 3, 2004, Jackson cannot meet the exception applied in Bivens. Thus, Fleming claims, Jackson's suit is barred by the statute of limitations. Fleming's reliance on Bivens is misplaced. The recognized implied exception in Bivens is not an exclusive exception that renders Delaware Superior Court Rule 6(a) inapplicable.
9. Fleming also argues a Superior Court drop box and modern technology have made Rule 6(a) superfluous because the Prothonotary is "always open." Even if, as Fleming suggests, the Prothonotary is "always open" and Rule 6(a) is, therefore, arguably superfluous, Rule 6(a) remains applicable here because the rule only applies, in relevant part, when the last day of the limitations period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Jackson's reliance on this longstanding rule is therefore justified, and this Court will not bar Jackson's suit based on a theory that the rule lacks any meaningful purpose. Moreover, the rule still appears to be functional as the situation in Bivens does indicate that the Superior Court is not "always open." Until and if the Superior Court modifies Rule 6(a), its language cannot be deemed superfluous.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
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.
|
|