Turner v. Yamaha Motor Corp.

FISCHER, Judge. Appellants Warren M. Turner and Marcia S. Turner, husband and wife, appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment against them by the Circuit Court for Howard County. This case arises from an accident alleged to have occurred on July 15, 1986 resulting in injuries to Marcia Turner. It is alleged that she was injured in Virginia while operating an “all-terrain vehicle” (ATV) which appellees (Yamaha) manufactured and sold to appellants.

The original complaint was filed on July. 14, 1989 and was subsequently amended after appellees’ motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that “Plaintiffs’ Complaint improperly mixes the separate and distinct claims of two different plaintiffs in one count.” Subsequent to the filing of the amended complaint, appellees filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment based upon an assertion that the Virginia two year period of limitations applied, and therefore, appellants’ claim was time barred. On April 17, 1990, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment reasoning, “[Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the Virginia statute of limitations.” This appeal followed, and, while appellees prevailed at the trial court, they apparently concede here. The only question before us is whether the statute of limitations of Virginia or Maryland applies to this cause of action. It appears that the circuit court relied primarily upon the holding of the Court of Appeals in Hauch v. Connor, 295 Md. 120 , 453 A.2d 1207 (1983).

Hauch re ³ affirmed that a tort action is governed by the substantive law of the state where the wrong occurred. What the trial court overlooked, however, is that generally the question as to which period of limitations applies is a matter of procedural, not substantive, law. The Court of Appeals said, in Mandru v. Ashby, 108 Md.