Burnett v. New York C. R. Co.

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Burnett v. New York C. R. Co. as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 00:58, December 19, 2011. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

In Burnett v. New York C. R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965), The United States Supreme Court created an exception to the general rule that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action without prejudice, the plaintiff is in the same legal position as if he or she had never brought the suit. This exception was created only when fairness required that the action not be barred when the prior suit was timely filed but was dismissed for improper venue.

"On March 13, 1963, petitioner, a resident of Kentucky, began an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. 51 et seq. (1958 ed.), in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio. He alleged that he had been injured on March 17, 1960, in Indiana, while in the course of his employment with respondent, the New York Central Railroad. The Ohio court had jurisdiction of the action, and respondent was properly served with process. The action was dismissed upon respondent's motion, however, because venue was improper."

"On June 12, 1963, eight days after his state court action was dismissed, petitioner brought an identical action in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The District Court dismissed petitioner's complaint on the ground that although the state suit was brought within the limitations period, the federal action was not timely and was then barred by the limitation provision of the FELA, 35 Stat. 66, as amended, which provides: "That no action shall be maintained under this Act unless commenced within three years from the day the cause of action accrued.""

The case was then granted certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that, "While venue was improper in the state court, under Ohio law venue objections may be waived by the defendant, and evidently in past cases defendant railroads, including this respondent, had waived objections to venue so that suits by nonresidents of Ohio could proceed in state courts. Petitioner, then, failed to file an FELA action in the federal courts, not because he was disinterested, but solely because he felt that his state action was sufficient. Respondent could not have relied upon the policy of repose embodied in the limitation statute, for it was aware that petitioner was actively pursuing his FELA remedy; in fact, respondent appeared specially in the Ohio court to file a motion for dismissal on grounds of improper venue."

The Supreme Court concluded, "since petitioner brought a timely suit in the Ohio court, served defendant with process, and, after finding the state action dismissed for improper venue, filed his suit in the Federal District Court only eight days after the Ohio court dismissed his action, before his time for appealing from the Ohio order had expired, his federal court action was timely. The Court of Appeals decision affirming the District Court's dismissal of petitioner's action is therefore reversed, and this case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion."