(dissenting). This appeal stems from plaintiffs claim of injury and damages resulting from a slip and fall allegedly caused by a foreign substance on a stairway owned and maintained by defendant.
On September 15, 1971, plaintiff filed his action and demand for jury trial. The complaint sets the date of injury as October 10, 1968.
Defendant’s answer, shortly thereafter, denied negligence and claimed contributory negligence as an affirmative defense.
Plaintiff was deposed on January 19, 1972. The *677deposition testimony indicated that the injury occurred on June 30, 1968, which raised a statute of limitations defense.
On September 29, 1972, defendant filed a motion for accelerated judgment on the ground of the limitations defense as a bar to plaintiff’s action.
The motion was heard on October 27, 1972. Accelerated judgment was granted by the trial court. Plaintiff appeals this decision.
On the first issue presented I concur with my colleagues. I find it unnecessary to consider the propriety or timeliness of defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment. In certain situations this type of motion may he filed after the first responsive pleading (GCR 1963, 116), "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action”. Manufacturer’s Construction Co v Covenant Investment Co, 43 Mich App 123, 128; 204 NW2d 54, 56 (1972). This is such a case. The trial court has that discretion where he feels there are no disputed questions of fact.
My review of the record and transcript on the motion hearing for accelerated judgment leads to the conclusion that June 30, 1968, was the date of plaintiff’s injury and that the statute of limitations bar applies. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony clearly, unequivocally and persuasively relates the date of his injury to the death of an apprentice on the job. The apprentice was killed on June 30, 1968. Nothing in the record controverts this finding. My fellow judges on this panel have determined that the date of the accident is still a disputed fact. For it to become a disputed question of fact at trial, the plaintiff is going to have to perjure himself — that is if the deposition was taken under oath.
The granting of defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment should be affirmed.