Carter v. McKnight

The plaintiffs failed to exercise the greatest possible diligence in serving the defendant outside the applicable limitation periods on their personal injury and property damage claims.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On October 30, 2000, Joe Manuel, Jr., and James Carter sued Janet McKnight for damages allegedly arising out of a March 5, 1997 collision between Manuel’s truck and McKnight’s automobile. Manuel asserted a property damage claim, and Carter, who was a passenger in Manuel’s truck, sought recovery for personal injuries. Over one year later, on January 3, 2002, McKnight filed a “Special Appearance Answer and Defenses” and a summary judgment motion, asserting that she had never been served with process and that all claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. The trial court granted McKnight’s motion, and finding no error, we affirm. Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”1 The record reveals that the plaintiffs originally raised their claims against McKnight in a suit that was dismissed on May 1, 2000. Although we do not know the date of that original suit, it apparently was filed inside the four year limitation period for property damage claims and the two year period for personal injury claims.2 This case is a renewal of that original action, timely filed within six months of the May 1, 2000 dismissal.3

On November 1, 2000, a sheriff’s deputy attempted to serve the renewal complaint on McKnight at a Glynn County address provided by the plaintiffs. The deputy was unable to locate or serve McKnight, and he indicated on the Entry of Service form that McKnight had “relocated to the Atlanta area.” The record contains no evidence of proper service.

Carter v. McKnight

The plaintiffs failed to exercise the greatest possible diligence in serving the defendant outside the applicable limitation periods on their personal injury and property damage claims.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report