Title: Perry v. State Highway Commission

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

169 Kan. 382 (1950)
219 P.2d 659
DORADEEN PERRY, an incompetent, by ALVA B. PERRY, Her Father and Next Friend, Appellee,
v.
THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF KANSAS, Appellant.
No. 37,891

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 10, 1950.
Alfred J. Anderson, of Iola, argued the cause, and Stanley Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, W.H. Vernon, of Larned, Riley W. MacGregor, of Medicine *383 Lodge, and Harold Steinrauf, of Topeka, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
John A. Etling, of Kinsley, argued the cause, and W.N. Beezley, of Kinsley, Hal E. Harlan and A.M. Johnston, both of Manhattan, were with him on the briefs for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
This is an appeal by defendant, State Highway Commission, from an order overruling its demurrer to the amended petition in an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of a defective condition in a state highway.
The demurrer was based on two grounds:
The amended petition alleges:
..............
Defendant Commission contends that this action, being brought under and by virtue of the provisions of G.S. 1935, 68-419, is strictly a statutory proceeding; that the express provisions of the statute cannot be enlarged or diminished; that only those persons enumerated therein can maintain such an action, and that it does not contemplate an action being brought by a "next friend."
The pertinent portions of the statute are:
*384 Counsel for defendant Commission have furnished us with an extensive brief in which are cited many cases dealing with remedies created by statute, the distinction between common law remedies and those of statutory origin, and the strict construction to be given the latter. No good purpose would be served by taking up and discussing them in detail. All have been examined and we concede the rules therein announced to be the law under the facts and circumstances of the particular cases to which they are applied.
But the question before us is whether a person in the status of the injured party here, as alleged in the amended petition, can maintain this action by her "next friend."
We believe that counsel for defendant Commission have failed to differentiate between remedy and procedure. It is true that the right of action, that is, the remedy in this case, exists solely by reason of the statute (G.S. 1935, 68-419). It simply gives a right of action under stated conditions, but nowhere in it do we find that it attempts to make any change in the well-established procedure in this state or prescribe a separate procedure in actions of this kind. Apparently this precise question has never previously been before this court. However, our reports are not wanting in authority on the general proposition of one bringing an action by his "next friend". In the case of Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1, 251 Pac. 438, the action was one to recover shares of stock and was commenced by C.W. Talbot by his next friend, Mrs. C.W. Talbot. The petition alleged that C.W. Talbot was a person of unsound mind but had not been adjudged incompetent and no guardian for him had been appointed. In affirming an order overruling a demurrer to the petition on the ground plaintiff had no capacity to sue, this court in a very able opinion reviewed the statutes and earlier authorities dealing with the question and held:
In the course of the opinion it was said:
Counsel for both parties to this action rely on the decision in that *385 case, but we think it is authority for plaintiff's position rather than defendant Commission's. The real gist of that holding is that in the absence of a statute abrogating the common law right of an incompetent to sue by next friend when incompetency has not been adjudged, the right exists in this state without regard to the character of the remedy sought. Certainly the statute (G.S. 1935, 68-419) does not abrogate the right and neither do we find any other statute which does.
And there is still a further reason why we think the action may be so maintained. The code (G.S. 1935, 60-401) provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest (with certain exceptions not here material). The statute here involved (G.S. 1935, 68-419) provides that:
The plaintiff here is Doradeen Perry, the injured party, and it is she, not her father and next friend, who is really bringing the action. She is the real party in interest and not her father.
(See, also, Prosser v. Prosser, 159 Kan. 651, 157 P.2d 544.)
We hold that the action is properly maintainable in the manner in which it was brought.
With respect to the second ground of the demurrer, that the amended petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Commission, the argument of counsel is that the allegations do not show the highway to be defective within the meaning of the statute; that they do not show that such alleged defect was the proximate cause of the injury, and that it affirmatively appears that both plaintiff and the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger were guilty of contributory negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury.
Rather than attempt to summarize the allegations of the amended petition in this respect we set them out in full, and they are as follows:
..............
..............
Cases involving actions for damages on account of alleged defective highways have been before this court many times since the enactment of the statute (G.S. 1935, 68-419). Our reports contain numerous decisions having to do with various types of alleged defects. In some the conditions have been held to be defects within the meaning of the statute  in others not. Nothing would be added to the body of our law on the subject by a detailed discussion and analysis of those decisions. They are cited in the annotations under the statute number in G.S. 1935 and G.S. 1947 Supp. In passing on demurrers to petitions in actions such as this, appellate courts should be careful to refrain from saying anything which would in any way tend to prejudice either of the parties in the trial of the case. Here, however, defendant Commission asks us to hold that as a matter of law the allegations of the amended petition do not allege a defective condition in the highway, within the meaning of the statute, which was the proximate cause of the injury, and, further, that the allegations affirmatively show contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff and the driver of the car in which she was riding as a passenger. That we cannot do. What the proof may show on the trial of this case is another matter, but we have no difficulty in agreeing with the lower court that the allegations of the amended petition state a cause of action within the purview of the statute.
The demurrer to the amended petition was properly overruled and the judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.