I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - CA- 0 0 4 1 4 - S CT J AM ES ALLEN

BU RCH , W I LLI AM H ARO LD BURCH, AND NANCY BURCH M CCL OUD , AS W RONGF UL DE

AT H BENE FICI

AR I ESOF HAROLD E. BURCH, DECEAS ED
v. I L L I NOI SCENT RA L RA I

L RO AD COM

P AN Y D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 12/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J EF F W EI LL , S R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : J OHN T I M OT HY GI VE NS TI M OTHY W
. P ORTE R P AT RI CK C. M AL OUF ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: S TE P HAN I E CAM I LL E RE I F ERS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 24/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E D I C K I N SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. P lain tiffs file d a w ro n g fu l d e a th su it ag a in st Illin o is C e n tra l fo r th e d e a th o f th e ir f at her. T he ca s e w as di s m i s s ed bec aus e the thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run. Pl ai nt i f f s appea l ed, cl ai m i ng t hat the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had notexpi r ed, beca us e i tw as t ol l ed w hi l e the f

i r s ts ui t , f

i l ed by the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ m other , w as pendi ng. F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory ¶2. H ar ol d B ur ch w or ked f orI l l i noi s Cent r al Rai l r oad C om pany f r om 1950 t o 1983. T he pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m thatH ar ol d w as expos ed t o as bes t os dur i ng thatt i m e. H ar ol d w as di agnos ed

### 2

w i th as bes t os i s and l ung canc er , and he di ed i n A ugust2 00 6. H ar ol d’ s w i dow , Fr ance s B urch, i nd i vidual l y an d o n b ehalf of H arol d’s w rongful death ben efi ci ari es, fi l ed suitagainst I l l i noi s C entr al i n A pr i l 2009. Fr ance s di ed i n Sept ember2011 w hi l e the s ui tw as pendi ng, and I l l i noi s C entr al f

i l ed a s ugges t i on of

death. Fr ance s ’ s att orney s fai l ed t o f i l e a mot i on f orsubst i tut i on of

part i es w i thi n ni nety days as r equi r ed, s o I l l i noi s C entr al f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s . Fr ance s ’ s couns el di d notres po nd to t he mot i on t o di s m i s s unt i l f i ve mont hs l at er , af t erbei ng or der ed t o do s o by the court . A f t era hea r i ng, the ca s e w as di s m i s s ed
w i thoutpr ej udi ce i n Sept ember2012. T he f ol l ow i ng day, H ar ol d’ s chi l dr en f i l ed a s econd
com plai n tas H arol d’s w rongful death ben efi ci ari es. Il l i no i s C entr al m ov ed to di sm i ss,
as s ert i ng thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had expi r ed. T he pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m ed thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s had n ot expi red becau se i thad been t oll ed d uri ng the p end ency of the fi rs t l aw s ui t . T he ci r cui tcour tfound t hatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run, and the ca s e w as di s m i s s ed. T he pl ai nt i f f s appea l ed. D i s cus s i on ¶3. T he i s s ue on appea l i s w hetherthe doctr i ne of equi t abl e t ol l i ng appl i ed and t ol l ed the
s t atut e of

l i m i t at i on s w hi l e the f i r s ts ui tw as pendi ng. T he s t andar d of r evi ew f

ora tr i al
c o u rt ’s g ra n t o r d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to d is m is s is d e n o v o . Fo s s v. Wil lia ms , 993 So. 2d 378, 382 ( ¶ 17) (M i ss. 2008) ( quot i ng B urles on v. L athem , 9 6 8 S o . 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 )). T he d e no vo st and ard al so app l i es t o the app l i cat i on of a st atut e of l i m i t at i on s, w hich i s a q u e s tio n o f l a w . S a rr is v . Sm ith , 782 So. 2d 721, 723 ( ¶ 6) ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng A B C M f g. Co rp . v. D o

y le , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 4 3 , 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )).

### 3

¶ 4
. T h e t i me l i mi tf

o rf i l i n g a c l a i m u n d e rth e F e d e r a l E mp l o y e r s L i a b i l i ty Ac t( F E L A) i s “thr ee ye ar s f

r om the day the ca us e of act i on accrued. ” 45 U
. S. C
. § 56 (2006)
. Fr ance s ti m ely fil ed the o ri g inal co m p lai n t w ith in the three -ye ar statute o f l im it ati o n s. P lai n ti ffs
m ai nt ai n thatthe s t atut e of li m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed w hi l e Fr ance s ’ s cas e w as pendi ng; ther ef or e, w hen the pl ai nt i f

f s f i l ed the s econd c om pl ai ntone day a f t erthe f i r s ts ui tw as di s m i s s ed, they w er e s t i l l w i thi n t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . I l l i noi s C entr al argue s thatt he doctr i ne of

e qui t abl e t ol l i ng doe s notappl y beca us e the pl ai nt i f f s “s l epton thei rr i ght s , ” the
re su lt o f w h ich w a s h a v in g th e firs t su it d ism iss e d fo r fa ilu re to su b stitu te p a rties . T h u s, it i s I l l i noi s C entr al ’ s pos i t i on thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had e xpi r ed by the t i m e the pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed the s econd c om pl ai ntm or e than s i x year s af t erH ar ol d di ed. ¶5
. Il li n o is C en tr al reli es o n the c ase o f P r i ce v. I l linois Centr al

G ul f Railr oad Co. , 584 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ). In 1 9 8 6 , S te p h e n P ric e filed su it ag a in st Illin o is C e n tra l in A la b a m a , b u t h e d ie d s e v e ra l m o n th s la te r w h ile th e s u it w a s p e n d in g . P r i ce , 584 So. 2d at 12 80
. Il l i no i s C entr al fi l ed a sug gest i on of deat h, bu tno on e w as subst i tuted, and the case
w a s d is m is s e d w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . I d . O n interl o cu tory ap p ea l, the A laba m a S u p rem e C o u rt
or der ed thatthe s ui tbe di s m i s s ed w i th p re ju d ic e . I

d . W hi l e the i nt er l ocut ory appea l w as p e n d in g in A la b a m a , P ri c e ’s w id o w fi le d s u it a g a in s t I llin o is C e n tr a l in L o u is ia n a . I d. A f t er the A l abama cas e w as di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce, the Loui s i ana c ase w as dis m i s s ed on the g rou n d o f re s ju d ica ta . I d. B ef or e the Loui s i ana c as e w as di s m i s s ed, butaf t erthe expi r at i on
o f th e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , P ri c e ’s w id o w file d a th ir d su it in M is s is s ip p i. I d. T he M i s s i s s i p p i c a s e was d i s mi s s e d a s b a rr e d b y th e th r e e - y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s f

o rFELA
c a s e s . I d. a t 1 2 8 1 . T h is C o u rt a ff ir m e d th e d is m is s a l. I

d. at1282.

### 4

¶6. T he P r i ce C our tdi s cus s ed B urnett v. N ew Y ork Centr al

R ailr oad Co. , 380 U
. S. 424 ( 1965) , i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our the l d that“ w hen a pl ai nt i f f be gi ns a t i m el y FE L A act i on i n a s t at e courtof

compet entj ur i s di ct i on . . . and t he s t at e courtact i on i s l at erdi s m i s s ed b e c a u se o f im p ro p e r v e n u e , the F E L A lim itatio n is to lled d u rin g th e p e n d e n c y o f th e sta te act i on. ” B u rn e tt , 3 8 0 U .S . at 4 2 8 . In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s s h o u ld be tol l ed, the S up rem e C ou rtw rot e t hat “the b asi c i nq uiry is w hethercon gress i on al pu rpose is e ff e c tu a te d b y to llin g th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s in g iv e n c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” I d. at42 7. T hu s, the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons w i l l notbe t ol l ed i n e very c i r cumst ance i n w hi ch t he o ri gina l compl ai ntw as t i m el y fi l ed; ra ther , t he cour t s m us tconsi derthe ci r cumst ance s ati s s ue and
w hethert ol l i ng w oul d ef f ectuat e the congr es s i onal purpos e of the s t atut e. T he C our tw ent on t o expl ai n: S t atutes of l i m i t at i on s ar e pri m ari l y desi gn ed t o assure f ai rness t o d efendan t s. Such s t atut es pr om ot e jus t i ce by pr event i ng s urpr i s es thr ough the r evi val of c laim s tha t hav e b ee n all o w ed to slum b er u n ti l evid en ce h as b ee n lost, m emori es have f

aded, and w i tnes s es have di s appea r ed. T he theory i s thateven i f one has a j us tcl ai m i ti s unj us tnott o putt he adver s ary on not i ce t o def end w ith in the p e rio d o f li m itatio n an d tha t th e rig h t t o b e fre e o f sta le c la im s in t i m e comes t o pr evai l overthe r i ghtt o pr osecute t hem
. . . . M or eover , the co u rt s o u g h t t o b e re li ev ed o f th e b u rde n of tryin g st ale claim s w h en a p lai n ti ff has sl ept on his ri gh t s. I d. at428 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he B u rn e tt C our tappl i ed the doctr i ne of equi t abl e t ol l i ng b ec au se the p l ai nti ff

“did not s l eep o n h i s r i gh t s but br ou gh tan acti on w i thin the statutory per i od i n a s t at e courtof c om pet entj ur i s di ct i on. ” I d. at429. Such w as notthe ca s e i n P r i ce , and thi s Courthe l d thatt o appl y equi t abl e t ol l i ng i n P r i ce “w oul d br oaden c ons i der abl y” the doct ri ne as appl i ed i n B u rn e tt . P r i ce , 584 So. 2d at1282. T hus , the C our taf f i r m ed d is m is s a l o f t h e a c tio n b e c a u s e th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s h a d e x p ir e d
. I d.

### The Kn igh t Court cit ed se veralcas es from

other state s in whic h thecourts re ac hed 1 

### this co nclu sion
. See Knight, 5 So . 3dat 83 6-3 7 (¶¶ 2 7-2 9) (citin g, inter a lia , King v . Luj an , 646 P.2d 1243, 1244-45 (N. M. 1982) (“ . . . weadopt thevie w that e ven t

hough thefi ling of a s uit ordinarily tol ls theappl ic abl e li mi tationsperi od, when an action i s di sm is se d without pre judi cebec aus e o f a

fa ilureto prose cut e, theint er ruption i s c onsi der ed a s ne ver having occ urr ed.
. . . A party who has sl ept on his ri ghts shoul d not beper mi tt ed t o haras s the op po singpartywitha pen din g actio n fo r an unreason able time. . . . Furthermo re, the co urts shoul d not di stingui sh betwee n a plainti ff who takes no action be for e the l im it ations period expire s and a pl ainti ff

who fi le s a

com plaint bef ore th e period e xpires but who ther ea ft er takes n o actio n.”); Su

pp elan d v. N

ilz , 623 P. 2d 832, 835 (Ari z. Ct. App. 1980) (“ eve n though t he f il ing of a s uit ordinarily tol ls the appl ic abl e l im it ations period, when an ac ti on is dismissedwith out p re ju d ice becau se of a failure to p rosecute, the interrup tionis con sideredas never hav ing occurred”); Shaw v. Corc oran , 570 S. W.2d 96, 98 (Te x. App. 19 78 ) (same); Owensv. Wei ngart en’ s I nc. , 442 F. Supp. 497, 498 (W. D. La. 1977) ( same ). Mis si ss ippi ’s savings st at utegive s pl ainti ff

s a n addi ti onalye ar

t o “ comme ncea ne w 2 

### ac ti o nf o r th e same cause” if th e orig inal case is d ismissed due to “the d eath o f anyparty the re to, or f

or any matter

of for m. ” Miss . CodeAnn. § 15- 1-69 ( Rev. 2012). The s avings st at utedoesnot he lp t

he pl ainti ff

s he re , howe ver , be ca

usetheUnit ed St at es Suprem e Cour t has heldthat states’ savin gs statutes do not app ly to FE LAcases. Price , 584 So. 2d at 1281 (di sc uss ing Bu rnett, 380 U. S. at 432- 33). 5 ¶7. A l though noti n a F E L A cas e, t hi s C our thas hel d that“w hen an a ct i on i s di s m i s s ed
w i thoutpr ej udi ce f

orf ai l ur e t o pr osecute, the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons does nott ol l , and the part i es ar e l ef

ti n t he s ame posi t i on as i f they had neverf

i l ed the ac t i on. ” Kni

ght v. Kni ght , 85 S o. 3d 832, 837- 38 ( ¶ 30) ( M i s s . 2012)
. T he K n ig h t C our tr eas oned that“[ a] l l ow i ng t he 1 sta tu te to to ll i n su c h a situ a tio n p re se n ts a n o p p o rtu n ity fo r a b u s e o f p ro c e ss , p o ten tially al l ow i ng cas es t o be di s m i s s ed and r ef i l ed f ora p eri od o f year s oreven de cade s [ , w hi ch]
w oul d r ew ar d pl ai nti ff

s w ho sl eep on thei rr i ght s and w oul d l ead t o unj us tr es ul t s . ” I d. N ot abl y, the C our tconcl uded by w r i t i ng: T hi s hol di ng, how ever , does notm ean thatal l cas es di s m i s s ed w i thout p r e j u d i c e a f t e rth e s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s h a s e x p i r e d c a n n o tb e r e f i l e d
. S o me w i l l be r evi ved by the s avi ngs s t atut e, equi t abl e t ol l i ng, orotherw i s e. O ur [ 2]

### 6

narr ow hol di ng her e i s mer el y thatdi s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce f orw antof prosecuti on do es not t oll the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. I d. a t 8 3 8 (¶ 3 1 ). ¶8. A ccor di ng t o R ul e 25 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, upon the death of
o n e p a rty , a “ m o tio n fo r su b stitu tio n ” m u st b e m a d e “ w ith in n in e ty d a y s a fte r th e d e a th is
su g g ested ” o r “th e ac ti o n sh all b e d ism issed w ith o u t prejud ice.” M iss. R
. C iv. P. 25 (a)(1). T he co m m ent t o thatrul e provides: T he gene r al pr ovi s i ons of M R C P 6( b) appl y t o m ot i ons t o s ubs t i tut e; a c c o rd in g ly , the c o u rt m a y e x ten d th e p e rio d fo r s u b stitu tio n if tim e ly r equ e s t e d. Si mi l a r l y, the c ou r tmay a l l ow s ub s t i tut i on t o be mad e a f t e rt he expi r at i on of

the ni nety day per i od on a show i ng t hatt he f ai l ur e t o actear l i er w a s th e re su lt o f e x c u sa b le n e g lec t. M iss . R . C iv . P . 2 5 (a )(1 ) c m t. T h is C o u rt re c e n tly d e fin e d “ e x c u sa b le n e g lec t” u n d e r R u le 25, appl yi ng pr i nci pl es thathave l ong appl i ed i n the cont extof R ul e 4: [S ]i m p le in a d v e rte n c e , m is tak e o f c o u n se l, or ig n o ra n c e o f th e ru les u su a lly d o e s n o t c o n s titu te e x c u s a b le n e g le c t. Stutt s v. Mil ler , 3 7 So. 3 d 1, 4 ( ¶ 9) (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ); Hol

m e s v. Coas t

Tr ans it Auth. , 815 So. 2d 1183, 1186 ( ¶ 11) ( M i s s . 2002)
. E xcus abl e negl ecti s “a ve ry s tr i cts t andar d. ” W ebs terv. W ebs ter , 8 3 4 S o . 2 d 2 6 , 2 9 (¶ 1 1 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). G o o d c a u se a n d e x c u sa b le negl ecthave be en l i nk ed i nexor abl y t o one another , as a s how i ng of good c a u se h a s b e e n sa id to re q u ire at lea st a s m u c h as a sh o w in g o f e x c u sa b le n e g le c t. I

d. at 28 (¶ 4 ). Clark v. K

nes al , 1 1 3 S o . 3 d 5 3 1 , 5 3 9 -40 (¶ 2 9 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 3 ). ¶9. Fr ance s ’ s couns el di d notatt empt t o s how good caus e f orf ai l i ng t o s ubs t i tut e a par ty. I n thei rr es pons e t o I l l i noi s Cent r al ’ s mot i on t o di s m i s s – f i l ed more than f

i ve mont hs af

t er th e m o tio n to d ism iss w a s file d a n d n e a rly ten m o n th s a ft e r F ra n c e s d ied – c o u n se l sim p ly
sa id th a t th e y h a d d ra fte d b u t h a d fa iled to file a m o tio n fo r su b stitu tio n a n d th a t fa ilu re to do s o had bee n m er el y an over s i ght
. A s s etf or th above, the C our thas hel d thati nadvert ence

### 7

a n d m ista k e o f c o u n se l d o n o t co n stitu te e x c u sa b le n e g lec t. Clark , 1 1 3 S o . 3 d a t 53 9 -40 (¶ 29 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T hat i s preci sel y w hat the t ri al j ud ge held w hen he di sm i ssed the fi rs t
cas e, w r i t i ng i n the or derthat“[ o] ver s i ghti s notnor m al l y cons i dered by t he court s t o be
excus abl e negl ect . ” W e appl y “an abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d t o a tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs of f actconce rni ng the exi s t ence or l ack of good caus e orexcus abl e negl ect . ” Clark , 113 So. 3d at539 ( ¶ 28) ( ci t i ng L on g v. Mem ’l Hosp. at G u l

fport , 96 9 S o. 2d 35 , 38 (¶ 5) (M i ss. 2007) )
. A nd w e cannots ay thatthe tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng thatther e w as
n o e x c u s a b le n e g le c t. ¶10. H ar ol d di ed on A ugus t 31, 2006. Fr ance s t i m el y f i l ed s ui t agai ns t I l l i noi s C entr al on A pri l 2, 200 9. F rances died on Sep t em ber 16, 201 1. A ft er notheari ng fr om her at t orneys, I l l i noi s C entr al f

i l ed a s ugges t i on of

death on O ct ober28, 2011. N o party w as s ubs t i tut ed f orFr ance s ; i n f

act , heratt orneys di d not even respond t o the s ugges t i on of death. T he ni nety- day per i od forsub st i tut i ng a party expi r ed on J anuary 26, 2012. O n February 10, 2012, Il l i noi s C entr al fi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s . A gai n, ther e w as no r es pons e. C ouns el f or Fr ance s di d notr eappe arunt i l Jul y 11, 2012, af t ert he cour torde r ed t hem t o re s pond t o t he
m o ti o n to d ism iss. A ft er the tr ial jud g e d ism issed the firstsu it , p lai n ti ffs’ cou n sel q u ick ly filed th e se c o n d c o m p lain t th e n e x t d a y , S e p tem b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 . H o w e v e r, th e y im m e d iate ly beca m e unr es pons i ve aga i n. I l l i noi s C entr al f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the s econd s ui ton O ct ober23, 2012, butpl ai nt i f f s ’ counse l di d notr es pond unt i l J anuary 31, 2013, f ourdays bef or e the hea r i ng on t hatm ot i on. U nderthes e ci r cum st ances, t he tr i al j udge di d notf i nd
ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe p lai n ti ffs’ argu m en t r eg ard ing the d o ctri n e o f eq u it ab le t o ll ing
. In essence, the p l ai nti ff

s “sl ept on t heirri gh t s” b y faili ng t o sub st i tute a party for Frances,

### 8

i gnor i ng the s ugges t i on of death, and i gnor i ng the mot i on t o di s m i s s . R el yi ng on P r i ce , the tr i al j udge concl ud ed t hat t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had notbeen t ol l ed, and the ca s e w as d ism iss e d . W e h o ld th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t e rr in fin d in g th a t th e d o c trin e o f e q u itab le toll ing sh o u ld n o t b e ap p li ed an d th at th e statute o f l im it ati o n s h ad ex p ir ed w h en the p lai n ti ffs filed th e se c o n d c o m p lain t. C oncl usi on ¶1 1. W e a f

f i r m t he tr i a l c ou r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f the c a s e o n the g r ounds t hat , beca us e t he d o c tr i n e o f

e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g d i d n o ta p p l y , th e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s h a d e x p i r e d b y th e t i me th e p lain tiffs file d th e se c o n d c o m p lain t. ¶ 1 2
. AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, P. J . , LAM AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , AND KI NG , J J . , CON CU R. RA ND OL P H, P . J . , AN D P I E RC E , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .