 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Crisp6/20/2000
k of claims and is "not authority for the relation back of a claim against a new party." In the case at bar, the trial court found that "alleging claims against Mr. Crisp in his individual capacity, is akin to alleging claims against a new defendant." Plaintiffs argue, however, that they did not add a new party by adding the language "in his individual and in his official capacity" to their amended complaint.
In Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick, 121 N.C. App. 728, 468 S.E.2d 447 (1996), the plaintiff motorist filed an initial complaint against three Durham police officers in their individual capacities and later amended his complaint to add a claim against the City of Durham and to name the officers as defendants in their official capacities. This Court held that the amended complaint may not relate back to the filing date of the original complaint because the plaintiff was seeking to add new defendants and Rule 15(c) only allows the addition of new claims. Id. Furthermore, in Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 110, 489 S.E.2d 880, 887 (1997), our Supreme Court stated:
A suit against a defendant in his individual capacity means that the plaintiff seeks recovery from the defendant directly; a suit against a defendant in his official capacity means that the plaintiff seeks recovery from the entity of which the public servant defendant is an agent.
Therefore, we conclude that the amended complaint, which named defendant Crisp in his individual capacity, had the effect of adding a new party and does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint.
In summary, we find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Crisp in his individual capacity.
Affirmed.
Judges LEWIS and MARTIN concur.
|