Document: 380 U.S. 424 85 S.Ct. 1050 13 L.Ed.2d 941 Otto V. BURNETT, Petitioner,v.NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. No. 437. Argued March 11, 1965. Decided April 5, Douglas G. Cole, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Roy W. Short, respondent. Mr. Justice GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On 13, 1963, petitioner, a resident Kentucky, began an action under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (1958) ed.) in Common Pleas Court Hamilton County, Ohio. He alleged that he had been injured on 17, 1960, Indiana, while course his employment with respondent, New York Central Railroad. The Ohio court jurisdiction action, and respondent was properly served process. dismissed upon respondent's motion, however, because venue improper. While most transitory actions is proper wherever defendant can be summoned, see Rev.Code, §§ 2307.36, 2307.38, 2307.39, laid against railroads to recover personal injuries only county plaintiff's residence or where injury occurred.1 See 2307.37, Loftus v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 107 St. 352, 140 N.E. 94. June 12, eight days after state dismissed, petitioner brought identical District Southern petitioner's complaint ground although suit within limitations period, federal not timely then barred by limitation provision FELA, 66, 56 (1958 ed.), which provides: 'That no shall maintained this Act unless commenced three years from day cause accrued.' 230 F.Supp. 767. Appeals, rejecting argument tolled FELA provision, affirmed Court's dismissal suit. 332 F.2d 529. Appeals reasoned since does limit common-law right, but, rather, contained same creates right being limited, 'substantive' 'procedural.' For reason, it held, '(f)ailure bring time prescribed extinguished action.' at 530. We granted certiorari determine whether statute limitations. 379 913, 260, 184. 2 There doubt that, matter law, here involved 'commenced' meaning provides 'no * As held Herb Pitcairn, 325 77, 79, 65 954, 955, 89 L.Ed. 1483, 'when process has adequate parties start case judicial handling may lead final judgment without issuance new initial process, enough commence statute.' Had law permitted simply transferred another court, Pitcairn holds would have timely. problem here, transferable more than accrued. Nonetheless, reasons set out below, we hold principles underlying decision conclusion therefore 3 basic question answered determining whether, given facts, tolled, one 'of legislative intent enforceable time.' Mid-state Horticultural Co. 320 356, 360, 64 128, 130, 88 96. Classification such rather 'procedural' what circumstances period extended.2 expressly totally inflexible, appropriate circumstances, extended beyond years. Glus Brooklyn Eastern Terminal, 359 231, 79 760, 770. Osbourne United States, 164 767 (C.A.2d Cir.); Scarborough Atlantic Coast Line 178 253, 15 A.L.R.2d 491 (C.A.4th Frabutt York, C. & L.R. 84 460 (D.C.W.D.Pa.). These authorities indicate inquiry congressional purpose effectuated tolling circumstances. 4 In order intent, must examine purposes policies itself, remedial scheme developed enforcement rights Act. Such examination leads us conclude effectuates enacting humane Act,3 well those embodied Act's when plaintiff begins competent jurisdiction, service made opposing party, later improper venue, during pendency action. 5 Statutes are primarily designed assure fairness defendants. statutes 'promote justice preventing surprises through revival claims allowed slumber until evidence lost, memories faded, witnesses disappeared. theory even if just claim unjust put adversary notice defend free stale comes prevail over prosecute them.' Order Railroad Telegraphers Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 342, 348—349, 582, 586, 788. Moreover, courts ought relieved burden trying slept rights.4 6 This policy repose, protect defendants, frequently outweighed, interests require vindication rights. Thus, barred, though accrued, misled into believing supra. war prevented bringing suit, might know disability believe renders him immune supra; cases asserting them. 7 Considerations favor similar leading extension mentioned above. Petitioner did sleep but statutory jurisdiction. Service notifying objections waived defendant,5 evidently past railroads, including so suits nonresidents could proceed courts.6 Petitioner, then, failed file courts, disinterested, solely felt sufficient. Respondent relied repose statute, aware actively pursuing remedy; fact, appeared specially motion grounds venue. 8 Both jurisdictions recognized unfairness barring prior applicable run. both systems rules devised prevent happening. Thus 28 1406(a), allows district filed laying wrong division interest justice,' 'transfer any brought.'7 Congress thereby filing lawsuit 'ITSELF SHOWS THE PROPER DILIGENCE ON Part were intended insure. If reason uncertainties mistake 'the justice' penalized 'time-consuming justice-defeating technicalities." Goldlawr, Inc. Heiman, 369 463, 467, 82 916, 39. instituted improper, 1406(a) venue; 9 States two methods preserving causes otherwise passing first method analogous permits transfer State proper.8 issues, cannot bar some other chose preserve means 'transfer' second used many 'savings' statute.9 specifically gives whose procedural specified Rev.Code 2305.19, and, arising additional year court. preserved these 44 States.10 10 factors point intend who brings serves mean accept incorporates Saving Statute. To allow incorporate saving produce nonuniform periods several States. scope length they vary considerably State.11 all statutes.12 long 'has uniform operation, neither nor deflected therefrom local statutes.' Panama Johnson, 264 375, 392, 391, 396, 68 748; Second Cases (Mondou N.H. H.R. Co.), 223 1, 51, 55, 32 169, 175, 177, 327. also '(t)he material element (a) uniformity operation' wish 'to destroyed varying provisions limitation.' Engel Davenport, 271 33, 39, 46 410, 413, 70 813. incorporation variant defeat aim national uniformity. 11 hand, present do greater violence It substantial nonuniformity creating anomaly. A subsequent running provided elsewhere State. However, further relies 'saving' actions.13 effect, produced. Yet, pointed out, major having achieve position discourage certain Yet Congress, providing concurrent prohibiting removal sought Great Northern Alexander, 246 276, 38 237, 62 713. Cf. Gibson, Venue Clause Transportation Lawsuits, 18 Law Contemp. Prob. 367 (1953). Further, clear, various statutes, their desire time-barred merely expired Finally, humanitarian makes clear deprived doing so. 12 considerations thus best holding rule, applies regardless statute. hold, familiar applied limitations, dismissing becomes appeal taken entry appeal.14 rule produces minor taking adopt far less uniform. 'saved' varies widely among statutes. Similarly, toll 'reasonable time' orders create uncertainty exactly again compounded applying equitable doctrine 'laches' Whether laches bars depends 'is addressed discretion trial court.' Gardner 342 29, 30, 72 96 31. apply variance certainty fair defendant, carries provision. Applying case, finding before appealing expired, affirming reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 14 Reversed remanded. DOUGLAS, whom BLACK joins, concurring. 16 presented started date governs, 'commenced accrued' 56. I think 'commenced,' much 1483. 17 reaching find necessary rely fact 'before expired,' ante, page. Instead rest U.S., S.Ct., 955. (Emphasis supplied.) And 324 117, 132 133, 459, 466—467, 789 (dissenting Black, J.), setting forth requirements commencing 56: (1) bona fide effort claim, (2) (3) resulting defendant. delays inexcusably refiling prejudiced delay, will laches. 30—31, 13—14, That protection delay. rejects established doctrine, its own timeliness depend adopted other, unrelated long-established laches, contrast, uncomplicated, uniform, directly responsive problem. Laches, course, application instant dismissed. Counsel stated oral constitutionality special challenged litigation. No constitutional issue raised proceedings, express views question. distinction between substantive appears arisen involving conflicts laws, Harrisburg, 119 199, 140, 30 358; Davis Mills, 194 451, 24 692, 48 1067; Restatement Law, Conflict Laws 605. embodiment modifies conceivably together sued foreign forum, written should tolled. 'substantive'-'procedural' seem little help deciding questions extending period. 770; Developments Law—Statutes Limitations, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177, 1186—1188 (1950); Note, Yale L.J. 600, 604—605 (1963). See, e.g., Rogers Missouri Pac. 352 500, 507, 77 443, 448—449, 493. Griffith, Vindication National Public Policy Contemp.Prob. 160 Limitation Proviso, Hen. 8, c. (1540): 'Forasmuch Time appointed suing extend, past, above Remembrance living Man, truly try perfect Certainty Things, hath come Trial great Danger Mens Consciences impanelled Jury *.' Skelly Jefferson Bank, 606; Morey, 47 207, 269, L.R.A. 701. Because person property railroad arose resides. accident outside anywhere Railroads agree agreed, told argument, found involve accidents occurring, plaintiffs reside, brought. e.g. Woodworth 149 543, 80 N.E.2d 142. Numerous terminate hearing merits requires transferred. Gold 190 482 (D.C.N.D.Ind.); Dennis Galvanek, 171 115 (D.C.M.D.Pa.); Schultz McAfee, 210 (D.C.D.Me.). Thirty-one transfer-of-venue appear relevant: Alaska 22.10.040; Ariz.Rev. Stat.1956, 12—404; Deering's Cal.Code Civ.Proc.Ann.1959, 396; Colo.Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 98(f); Conn.Gen.Stat. 1958, 52—32; Fla.Stat.1963, 53.17 F.S.A.; Idaho Code 1947, 5—406; Smith-Hurd's Ill.Ann.Stat.1956, 110, 10; Burns' Ind.Ann.Stat.1933, 2—1401; Kan.Code Civ.Proc.Ann.1963, 60—611; Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.1959, 223, 15; Mich.Stat.Ann.1962, 27A.1651, Comp.Laws 1948, 600.1651 (P.A.1961, 236); Minn.Stat.Ann.1947, 542.10; Miss.Code 1942, 1441; Mont.Rev.Codes 93—2906; Nev.Rev.Stat. 13.050; N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.1955, 507:11; N.J.Court Rules Rev. 1:27D; McKinney's N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law 510; N.C.Gen.Stat. 25; N.D. Century 28—04—07; Ore.Rev.Stat. 14.110; S.C.Code 1962, 10—310; S.D.Code 33.0306; Vernon's Tex.Rules 257; Utah Ann.1953, 78—13—8; Va.Code 1950, 8—157; Wash.Rev.Code 4.12.030; W.Va.Code 1961, 5699; Wis.Stat.1963, 261.03; Wyo.Stat.1957, Civ.Proc.Code 1—53. 09.10.240 (one year); Ark.Stat.1947, 37—222 Conn.Gen.Stat.1958, 52—592 Del.Code Tit. 10, 8117 Ga.Code Ann. 808 (six months); 83, 24a 2—608 (five years); Iowa Ann.1950, 614.10 60-518 Ky.Rev.Stat. 413.270 (90 days); Slovenko's La.Civ.Code Art. 3555, R.S. 9:5801 (complete tolling); Me.Rev.Stat.1954, 112, 99 27A.5856, 600.5856 236) 744 93—2708 508:10 N.M.Stat.1953, 23—1—14 205 1—25 1954, 2305.19 Okla.Stat.Ann., 100 12.220 R.I.Gen.Laws 9—1—22 Tenn.Code Ann.1955, 28—106 Tex.Civ.Stat.Ann., 91, 5539a (60 78—12—40 Vt.Stat.Ann.1958, 558 8—34 5410 1—26 year). notes 9, supra, note infra. An 20 six months 90 60 State, five sixty imposes definite allowed. Nineteen Alabama, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, true 19 lack Of 19, not. Clayton 5(b), 69 283, 16(b) ed.); Electric Theater Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 113 937, 944 (D.C.W.D.Mo.); Subversive Activities Control 14, 1001, 50 793(b) ed.).

Category: 7