McNeill v. Tarumianz

138 F. Supp. 713, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3808
CourtDistrict Court, D. Delaware
DecidedFebruary 24, 1956
DocketCiv. A. 1715
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 138 F. Supp. 713 (McNeill v. Tarumianz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McNeill v. Tarumianz, 138 F. Supp. 713, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3808 (D. Del. 1956).

Opinion

CALEB M. WRIGHT, Judge.

The matter before the court is on motions to dismiss 1 for failure to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.

Two issues are raised by the defendants’ motions: (1) whether the cause of action is barred by the applicable Delaware statute of limitations, and (2), if the action is not barred by the limitations statute, whether there was adequate notice for retraction given to the defendant, The News-Journal Company, as required by 10 Delaware Code, Section 3919 2 and whether notice for retraction must be given to the defendant, Tarumianz, under this same statutory provision.

The complaint charges the defendant, Tarumianz, and the defendant, The News-Journal Company, hereinafter referred to as News-Journal, with libel. The alleged libel was published in the Wilmington Morning News, a daily newspaper published by the defendant, News-Journal, on August 27, 1952. The complaint also charges defendant, Tarumianz, with having made an alleged slanderous statement concerning the plaintiff to a representative of the Wil *715 mington Morning News on August 26th or 27th, 1952. The plaintiff 'did not commence suit until June 9, 1955, more than one year after the accrual of the actions for libel and slander, but within three years thereof.

Plaintiff contends actions for libel and slander are actions to recover damages caused by an “injury unaccompanied with force or resulting indirectly from the acts of the defendant” within the meaning of 10 Delaware Code, Section 8106. 3 The plaintiff then reasons her action is timely since it was commenced before the expiration of the three year limitation period provided in 10 Delaware Code, Section 8106. Plaintiff is correct in her assertion that injuries for libel and slander are within the meaning of “[injuries] unaccompanied with force or resulting indirectly from the acts of the defendant”. However, the problem remains as to whether libel and slander are “personal injuries” within the meaning of 10 Delaware Code, Section 8118, 4 which provision is specifically set forth as a controlling exception to the general three year limitation period of 10 Delaware Code, Section 8106. If libel and slander are “personal injuries” within the meaning of 10 Delaware Code, Section 8118, the plaintiff is unable to recover since suit was not commenced within one year from the accrual of the cause of action.

The Delaware statute limiting actions for personal injuries to one year first became law on May 28, 1897, 5 and has remained the same to this date. 6 Prior to May 28, 1897 all actions for trespass or trespass on the case were barred if not commenced within three years from the date the cause of action accrued. 7

Between 1852 and 1947, no material change was made in the three year limitation statute except to note in the Delaware Codes of 1915 and 1935 that the three year limitation statute was subject to the provisions of the statute barring actions for alleged personal injuries brought more than one year after they had accrued. 8 In 1947 the Legislature of the State of Delaware repealed the then existing three year limitation of actions statute 9 and enacted the present statute, 10 the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

“Section 8106. * * * No action to recover damages for trespass * * * and no action to recover damages caused by an injury unaccompanied with force or resulting indirectly from the act of the defendant shall be brought after the expiration of 3 years from the accruing of the cause of such action. * * * ”

The present statute is the same as the statute it repealed except that the words “action upon the case” were stricken and in lieu thereof the words, “an injury unaccompanied with force or resulting *716 indirectly from the act of the defendant” were substituted. This change simply spelled out the old form of action of trespass on the case. Actions which formerly sounded in trespass or trespass on the case still remain subject to the three year limitation period and, as had been the case since 1897, actions for personal injuries, whether formerly trespass or case, are barred if not commenced within one year of the accrual of the cause of action,

An examination of the various limitation statutes of Delaware does not indicate any legislative intent to restrict the statute barring actions for personal injuries commenced more than one year after the date they accrue to any particular kind of personal injury. The statute is plain and unambiguous. It creates no exceptions and the court is not justified in departing from the language of the statute and reading into it some qualification or exception which the Legislature did not provide. 11 The Delaware statute is no longer concerned with the form of action and is not limited to injuries caused in any particular manner, but plainly covers all actions for recovery of damages upon a claim for personal injuries whatever the nature of the personal injury. 12 For this reason the Delaware cases cited by the plaintiff 13 and the case in our Third Circuit Court of Appeals, 14 also cited by her, are not in point.

Whether the words, “personal injuries”, as used in 10 Delaware Code, § 8118 embrace actions of libel and slander depends upon the principles of common law in force at the time of its passage. 15 Where particular words used in a statute are questioned as to their meaning, they should be given the same or equivalent meaning as that long understood to be their meaning when used by recognized authorities and the courts.

Blackstone classified and distinguished those rights which are annexed to the person as jura personarum. He included within this classification personal security which consists, “in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health and his reputation.” 16 Chancellor Kent in his twenty-fourth lecture indicated he approved of this same classification of rights, and stated this classification was carried over into colonial legislative enactments and has always been observed. 17

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Winshall v. Viacom International, Inc.
Superior Court of Delaware, 2019
In Re Dillard Department Stores, Inc.
181 S.W.3d 370 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Shearin v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.
652 A.2d 578 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1994)
Wright v. ICI Americas Inc.
813 F. Supp. 1083 (D. Delaware, 1993)
Cole v. Delaware League for Planned Parenthood, Inc.
530 A.2d 1119 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1987)
Avallone v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc.
553 F. Supp. 931 (D. Delaware, 1982)
Pagano v. Hadley
553 F. Supp. 171 (D. Delaware, 1982)
Via v. O'Donnell
27 Va. Cir. 433 (Roanoke County Circuit Court, 1982)
Chrisco v. Shafran
525 F. Supp. 613 (D. Delaware, 1981)
DeMoss v. News-Journal Company
408 A.2d 944 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1979)
Heritage v. BD. OF ED., DeLaWARR SCHOOL DIST.
447 F. Supp. 1240 (D. Delaware, 1978)
Smith v. Goldstein
447 F. Supp. 1244 (D. Delaware, 1978)
Read v. Baker
430 F. Supp. 472 (D. Delaware, 1977)
Read v. Local Lodge 1284
383 F. Supp. 776 (D. Delaware, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 F. Supp. 713, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneill-v-tarumianz-ded-1956.