Court Opinion

ID: 9778105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:32:51.906483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:03.800381
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
dissenting.
Two assumptions necessarily underlie the statute in issue, as follows: (1) parents, guardians, or others having custody of children may be depended upon to protect the children’s legal rights, and (2) a child of the age of 10 and above is able to advise his custodian of any physical problems which might indicate a need for inquiry as to possible medical malpractice.
These assumptions are not unreasonable, and the legislature is entitled to make them in balancing the interests of claimants and defendants, while drafting a statute of limitation. The statutes of limitation on wrongful death actions,1 and on securities claims,2 have been held to run against minors. Any protection, then, must necessarily come from parents or guardians. Any suggested distinction between actions created by statute and those existing at common law is lacking in constitutional substance. The matter is one for legislative choice.
In the view I take, it makes no difference that §§ 507.110-120, RSMo 1978 and our Rule 52.02(a) limit the ability of minors to sue in their own names. A newly enacted statute should not fail because of conflict with previous statutes or rules. It should rather be assumed that the legislature intended the newly enacted statutory provisions to be effective, anything in the existing body of statutory law to the contrary notwithstanding. Conflicting provisions, then, should be considered to have been impliedly repealed pro tanto.3
Although I doubt that a court would turn aside a minor of any age who sought protection of legal rights, and would find im*14plied authority to make such appointments as are necessary to protect the minor’s interest, I would not argue with the suggestion in the principal opinion that it is unrealistic to expect minors to take steps to further their own legal rights. The essential question, then, is whether the legislature may provide that these rights must be protected by parents or guardians, under pain of being barred. I believe that the legislature may do this, and that the possibility that some minors may not have effective or alert guardians does not raise an issue of constitutional significance.
Any statute of limitations may operate harshly in a particular case, by barring an apparently meritorious claim, even though the injured party lacks means of protection.4 It is not for us to say whether there is or is not a malpractice crisis. It is sufficient that the legislature may legitimately concern itself with the possibility that health providers will be at severe disadvantage if forced to defend themselves against claims based on long past events. The legislature may balance the hardship to the defendants against the possibility that some plaintiffs may lose valid claims.5 It is our duty to uphold legislation as against constitutional challenges, unless unconstitutionality is firmly demonstrated. I am unable to find such a demonstration here, either under Art. I, §§ 10 and 14 of the Missouri Constitution or the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The statute permits the great majority of claimants to protect themselves. It should not fail in its entirety simply because its operation is not in all counts perfect.
The principal opinion conjures up the specter of the child whose parents are so indifferent or unsophisticated that they would let a valid claim lapse. I seriously doubt that this child will suddenly wake up at age 18, so that suit may be filed within the required number of years. Far more often, I suspect, the minor’s suit is delayed for strategic reasons. The right of the parents to sue for their own damages on account of the minor’s injury (as, we are told, the parents of this plaintiff have done) gives reason to believe that, in the great majority of cases, they will take care to protect the child’s interest. The legislature is entitled to proceed in accordance with its appraisal of the greatest good for the greatest number. We should not interfere with its choice, except in extreme cases.
A further fault in the principal opinion is that it apparently disables the legislature from enacting a statute of limitations governing any common law action which runs during minority. It would apparently not be possible to have a statute which runs in cases such as this one, in which the parents are perfectly aware of the minor’s claim, but which admits exceptions when the minor can show, upon reaching majority, that parents or guardians were incapable of providing protection (Oliver Twist). We should be careful not to unduly circumscribe the legislative power.
I would affirm the judgment.

. See, e.g. Crane v. Riehn, 568 S.W.2d 525 (Mo. banc 1978) (superseded by statute as stated in State ex rel. Research Medical Center v. Peters, 631 S.W.2d 938 (Mo.App.1982)); Kausch v. Bishop, 568 S.W.2d 532 (Mo. banc 1978); Edmonsond v. Lakeside Hospital, 562 S.W.2d 361 (Mo. banc 1978) (all holding minors to the provisions of the former Missouri wrongful death statute which prevented minors from bringing suit more than one year following the death of a parent if a parent of the decedent was alive).

. Buder v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 486 F.Supp. 56 (E.D.Mo.1980), aff'd., 644 F.2d 690 (8th Cir.1981).

. The majority opinion holds that § 516.105, RSMo 1978 is unconstitutional because it violates art. I, § 14 of the Missouri Constitution— the open courts provision. At least one other state has considered a similar challenge to a similar law. In Rohrabaugh v. Wagoner, 274 Ind. 661, 413 N.E.2d 891 (1980), the court found that a law which imposed a two-year statute of limitations for malpractice, with the exception that minors under the age of six could bring suit up to their eighth birthday, was not a violation of the open courts provision of the Indiana Constitution. Appellant tries to distinguish Rohrabaugh because Indiana does not prevent minors from bringing suit. However, for the reasons stated in the text paragraph, such a distinction is unimportant.

. See, e.g., Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1968), where this Court held that a woman was barred by the statute of limitations then in effect even though she did not discover the injury until after the statutory time limit.

. Courts in other states have upheld similar statutes against constitutional challenges on the ground that the legislature's classification was reasonable. Kite v. Campbell, 142 Cal.App.3d 793, 191 Cal.Rptr. 363, 367 (1983); Licano v. Krausnick, 663 P.2d 1066, 1068 (Colo.App.1983); Rohrabaugh v. Wagoner, 274 Ind. 661, 413 N.E.2d 891 (1980).