Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Whitener, ex rel. Miller v. Dahl
Date: 01-05-2001
Case Number: C7-99-2177
Judge: Edward C. Stringer
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown
Defendant's Attorney: Unknown
Respondent moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was not commenced within two years after the injury as required by Minn. Stat. § 340A.802, subd. 2 (2000). Appellants argued that their suit was timely because each appellant is younger than age 18 and under the minority-tolling statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1) (2000), the limitations provision for bringing an action under the Civil Damages Act is suspended until one year after a minor child reaches age 18. The trial court denied respondent's motion for summary judgment but certified as important and doubtful the following question: “Is the statute of limitations, for the cause of action of the minor children pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 340A.801 et seq., tolled pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 541.15?” The court of appeals reversed, granting the motion for summary judgment and holding that the legislature did not intend the limitations period in the Civil Damages Act to be suspended by the statutory minority-tolling provision and answered the certified question in the negative.
The certified question brings into focus an apparent conflict between Minnesota's minority-tolling statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a), [2] and the Civil Damages Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 340A.801-.802. [3] The minority-tolling statute creates a general exception to statutes of limitations for claims of minors, and provides, relevant to our purposes here, that the running of the statute of limitations on a cause of action shall be suspended as to a minor plaintiff until one year after the minor reaches age 18. Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a). The Civil Damages Act creates a right to bring a cause of action for injury or loss caused by an intoxicated person against an entity or person who illegally sold alcohol to the intoxicated person, but contains its own statute of limitations requiring commencement of an action within two years after the date of injury. The interplay of these two statutory provisions is the heart of this appeal and is a question of first impression before this court.
* * *
Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.
About This Case
What was the outcome of Whitener, ex rel. Miller v. Dahl?
The outcome was: We agree with the court of appeals and affirm.
Which court heard Whitener, ex rel. Miller v. Dahl?
This case was heard in Minnesota Supreme Court, MN. The presiding judge was Edward C. Stringer.
Who were the attorneys in Whitener, ex rel. Miller v. Dahl?
Plaintiff's attorney: Unknown. Defendant's attorney: Unknown.
When was Whitener, ex rel. Miller v. Dahl decided?
This case was decided on January 5, 2001.