Case Title: State Highway Commission v. Steele

Citation: 215 Kan. 837, 528 P.2d 1242

Docket Number: 

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1974-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
215 Kan. 837 (1974)
528 P.2d 1242
STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
ETHEL E. STEELE, and RONALD W. STEELE, Appellees.
No. 47,484

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 7, 1974.
R. Daniel Lykins, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Edward M. Swan, of Topeka, was with him on the brief for the appellant, State Highway Commission.
Warren D. Andreas, of McSpadden and Andreas, of Winfield, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KAUL, J.:
This action was brought by the State Highway Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) pursuant to K.S.A. 8-5,124 [Repealed, L. 1974, Ch. 587, Sec. 8-2205 and will appear as K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 8-1913] to recover damages to a bridge, which occurred when it was struck by an automobile owned by defendant-appellee Ethel E. Steele and driven by defendant-appellee Ronald W. Steele.
The sole question is whether the action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 60-513 (4).
The facts are not in dispute. The accident occurred on November 2, 1969; the action was filed more than three years thereafter on January 29, 1973. An amended petition was filed on November 2, 1973, in which the Commission alleged the automobile was being driven by Ronald with the express or implied permission of Ethel E. Steele and prayed for damages in the amount of $1,245.67. It is conceded that the maintenance of the bridge in question was the performance of a governmental function by the Commission.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Commission's petition showed on its face that the alleged negligence of the defendants occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the action and, therefore, the action is barred by the statute of limitations. *838 The trial court sustained defendants' motion and this appeal ensued.
In rendering its decision the trial court commented:
On appeal the Commission states the trial court erred in applying K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 60-513 (4) and ignoring the provisions of K.S.A. 60-521.
K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 60-513 sets out the actions which shall be brought within two years. Subsection (4) thereof reads:
K.S.A. 60-521 deals with the applicability of the limitations of actions prescribed in Article 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to public bodies. It clearly makes a distinction between actions arising out of proprietary functions of such bodies and actions arising out of their governmental functions or activities with respect to the applicability of limitations. 60-521 reads:
The advisory committee notes pertaining to the statute read:
Professor V.C. Martin of the Washburn University School of Law is the author of an analysis of the statute which we believe clearly states the import thereof. His comments appear in Vol. 5 Vernon's Kansas Statutes Annotated Code of Civil Procedure, § 60-521 as follows:
As Professor Martin points out causes of action arising out of governmental functions are omitted from the text of 60-521. In accordance with the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the statute having prescribed those actions which are subject to limitations, it is to be construed as excluding those actions which are not specified. (Tresner v. Rees, 154 Kan. 581, 119 P.2d 511; Black's Law Dictionary [4th Ed.] p. 692.)
In a long line of cases, the most recent of which, are Board of County Commissioners v. Lewis, 203 Kan. 188, 453 P.2d 46; and Riggan v. Director of Revenue, 203 Kan. 129, 453 P.2d 52, this court has consistently held that statutes of limitation do not run against the state unless specifically provided by statute.
K.S.A. 8-5,124 authorizes the Commission to bring an action to recover for damages to any highway or highway structure was mentioned by the trial court when ruling on the motion to dismiss, reads as follows:
An examination of the entire text of 8-5,124 reveals no provision, specific or general, which would make an action brought thereunder subject to the statute of limitations. Consequently, the cause of action in the instant case is not barred.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to proceed to trial on the merits.