Title: Farran v. Peterson, Administrator

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

185 Kan. 154 (1959)
342 P.2d 180
BEATRICE FARRAN, a Minor, by and Through Her Father, CLARENCE R. FARRAN, Her Natural Guardian and Next Friend, Appellant,
v.
KENNETH F. PETERSON, as Administrator of the Estate of W.F. Peterson, Deceased, STELLA PETERSON, and M.H. WALKER, Appellees.
No. 40,936

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 10, 1959.
James S. Phillips and Oren Gray, both of Parsons, were on the brief for the appellant.
Glenn Jones, Elmer W. Columbia, John B. Markham, and Herman W. Smith, Jr., all of Parsons, were on the briefs for the appellees.
*155 The opinion of the court was delivered by
JACKSON, J.:
This is an action by a minor child, appearing by her father as natural guardian and next friend, against the appellees as defendants seeking to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered due to the negligence of the defendants. This appeal is from an order of the district court sustaining a demurrer to the first cause of action in plaintiff's third amended petition, and also from the denial of certain motions filed by plaintiff.
Plaintiff is alleged to have suffered a broken leg and other injuries on February 15, 1954. At that time plaintiff is alleged to have been seven years of age. This action was originally begun February 21, 1955, to recover damages to compensate plaintiff for the alleged injuries. The case is still not at issue and no answer has ever been filed by defendants. We find it unnecessary to recount all the motions and amendments which have been filed. The case was before this court as to an appeal on a different part of the petition in Farran v. Peterson, 181 Kan. 145, 309 P.2d 677. The record of the case up to that time will be found in the former opinion.
One issue in the present appeal should be laid to rest at the outset. The defendants seem to have raised the question of the statute of limitations in the lower court and also in the briefs in this court. The plaintiff is still a minor since only a little more than five years have passed since her alleged injury. In the recent case of Domann v. Pence, 183 Kan. 196, 326 P.2d 260, the syllabus reads as follows:
The force and effect of the above clear statement of the law is that a minor child will not be barred of a right of action during his minority. Of course, a final judgment will determine the rights of a minor (Burdette v. Corgan, 26 Kan. 102; Huls v. Gafford Lumber & Grain Co., 120 Kan. 209, 243 Pac. 306; Perry v. Umberger, 145 Kan. 367, 65 P.2d 280; Lewis v. McConchie, 151 Kan. 778, 100 P.2d 752). No such adjudication has been had in this case during the last four years of this litigation.
In considering the other questions on this appeal, a more particular inspection of the pleadings will be necessary. We shall begin, however, with the third amended petition. As shown in our former *156 opinion, supra, that pleading included three causes of action. The first cause of action was based upon negligence in creating and permitting a dangerous condition to exist; the second cause charged the defendants with maintaining a nuisance; and the third cause sought to allege that the defendants had created and maintained an attractive nuisance. Only the third cause of action was involved in the first appeal to this court. The order of the trial court in striking the third cause from the petition was affirmed in our former opinion.
We are advised that the third amended petition was filed in the instant case on March 8, 1956. The defendants seem to have adopted an unusual and irregular procedure in pleading to this third amended petition. On March 28, 1956, defendants filed a motion to strike the third cause of action in the petition, but failed in any way to plead to the other causes contained therein until after the decision of this court on the former appeal relating to the third cause. Finally on May 27, 1957, more than a year later, defendants filed demurrers to the first and second causes of the amended petition as to which they had been in default for want of answer or other pleading. Plaintiff then through counsel belatedly filed motions to strike the demurrers of defendants as being filed out of time and without leave of court and "that the defendants by filing said instruments are attempting to avoid and delay trial."
Plaintiff also filed a motion denominated "motion for judgment on the pleadings" as to count one of the third amended petition. In this motion plaintiff seems to have contended that she was entitled to a default judgment against the defendants.
On June 19, 1957, the trial court overruled both plaintiff's motions to strike and the "motion for judgment on the pleadings." On August 1, 1957, the trial court is shown to have sustained the defendants' demurrers to the first and second causes of action. The reasons for the order are not indicated in the journal entry.
By timely appeal plaintiff brought the case to this court seeking a review of the trial court's ruling on the above motions and as to the order relative to the demurrers of the defendants.
Subsequent to this appeal, the defendant W.F. Peterson died and the action has been revived in the name of his administrator.
In the supplemental brief of the appellant herein, the appellant waives all matters relating to the second cause of action and relies entirely upon the first cause of the petition based upon negligence. The case was submitted to this court without benefit of oral argument, *157 and will be decided from the matters gleaned from the abstracts and briefs.
We shall first take up the matter of the plaintiff's motions to strike the demurrers to the first cause of action because of being filed out of time and for delay. Of course, these motions are within the sound discretion of the trial court. But we would point out the provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-708 reading as follows:
The above section of the civil code and the code in general have never been thought to sanction the response to an adversary's pleading in piecemeal stages. As early as Adams v. Lockwood, Englehart & Co., 30 Kan. 373, 2 Pac. 626, Mr. Justice Brewer, speaking for the court said:
Again in Krey v. Schmidt, 170 Kan. 86, at p. 89, 223 P.2d 1015, the court pointed out the impropriety of pleading to part of a petition, and see Zinn v. Hill Lumber & Investment Co., 176 Kan. 669, at p. 671, 272 P.2d 1106. Be that as it may, we do not believe that we can reverse the rulings of the trial court as to its refusal to strike the demurrers of the defendants.
It may be that the trial court sustained the demurrers to the first cause of action in the belief that the statute of limitations has run since the filing of the action. The case of Domann v. Pence, supra, reiterating the rules appertaining thereto, had not been decided at that time. As shown supra, the statute of limitations can play no part in this case.
The first cause of action of the petition which is now under consideration contains some matters of evidence and anticipatory material, *158 which may have been inserted into the pleading in response to motions directed at prior pleadings, but the best manner to consider the sufficiency of the petition would seem to be to set out the main portions thereof in this opinion. After three introductory paragraphs, paragraph numbered three continues:
[legal description]
The pleading continues with minute descriptions of plaintiff's injuries and prays judgment in the sum of $13,238 and interest.
The attention of counsel is directed to the fact, that under the above allegations, plaintiff is seeking compensation for injuries suffered upon a part of a piece of land possessed by the owner who has leased another portion with permission that all of his tenants may use the portion still possessed by the owner. It is clear that the owner and possessor of such a parcel of land may well be responsible for injuries to persons coming upon such real estate under the authority of his tenants, if he negligently allows a dangerous condition to exist thereon.
In Restatement, Torts, § 360, it is said:
Attention is especially directed also to Comment c. found under the above quoted rule.
In the case of Hinthorn v. Benfer, 90 Kan. 731, 136 Pac. 247, the syllabus of the opinion written by Mr. Justice Porter reads:
Attention is also directed to Zinn v. Hill Lumber & Investment Co., supra, and same case on later appeal, 180 Kan. 625, 305 P.2d 1056; Trimble v. Spears, 182 Kan. 406, 320 P.2d 1029; 52 C.J.S. 38, § 417(4); 32 Am. Jur. 559, § 687.
We direct special attention to the third paragraph of the syllabus of the opinion in the first appeal in the Zinn case, supra, stating the old rule:
It is also Hornbook law, that matters of defense need not be anticipated in a petition (Clark, Code Pleading, 2d Ed. 250, § 40).
Appellees in their brief seem to admit that the seven year old girl could not be charged with contributory negligence, which we agree would be exceedingly difficult to do, but suggest that plaintiff's parents should have kept her out of the way of danger. While if this theory were relevant it would seem to be a matter of defense to be raised by answer, attention is directed to the statement of Mr. Justice Dawson in the syllabus of Garcia v. Slater-Breitag Yeamans Motor Co., 128 Kan. 365, 278 Pac. 23, a case where a six year old girl had been injured by defendant's negligence. The statement reads:
*161 All other matters raised in the briefs of counsel have been carefully considered but require no further comment. The court is of the opinion that the first cause of action stated sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the defendants. The order of the trial court must be reversed with directions to require the defendants to file their answers to the above cause of action within a reasonable time and that the case be set down for trial at the earliest possible moment.
It is so ordered.