 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayward v. Valley Vista Care Corp.9/28/2001
ct court's decision to deny the motion to amend is reversed and remanded for action consistent with this opinion.
Summary judgment dismissal of Alfred's contractual claims is affirmed, as the malpractice provisions of the code preclude the alleged contract claims. None of the parties are entitled to attorney fees.
Costs are awarded to appellant.
Chief Justice TROUT, Justices SCHROEDER and WALTERS CONCUR.
Justice EISMANN, SPECIALLY CONCURRING
I concur in Parts I., II., III. B and C, and I concur in the result in Parts III. A and IV. On February 16, 1995, Delbert Hayward (Delbert) died. For tactical reasons, the personal representative of his estate filed two lawsuits regarding his treatment and death. The personal representative, who was Delbert's son Alfred, filed a wrongful death action in federal court and a survival action in state court. In the federal lawsuit, the personal representative sought to recover " or Plaintiff's loss of love and companionship of his father, Delbert Lewis Hayward." In the state lawsuit, the personal representative sought to recover " or Plaintiff's medical expenses and costs associated with his hospitalization, treatment, and death to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000)." The federal lawsuit was dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, and the personal representative then moved to amend the state lawsuit to add a claim for wrongful death. The proposed second amended complaint would have added in the prayer a request to recover " or Plaintiff's loss of love and companionship of his father, Delbert Lewis Hayward."
The defendants' motions for summary judgment were heard and granted before the district court ruled on the plaintiff's motion to filed a second amended complaint adding a claim for wrongful death. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration seeking clarification as to whether the district court intended to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful death claim and seeking permission to file the second amended complaint. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration upon the ground that a claim for wrongful death would be barred by the statute of limitations because it would not relate back under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). In so holding, the district court stated in its decision, "Where the original complaint does not give notice of the legal theory in an amended complaint, the amendment is a new cause of action which does not relate back. Wing v. Martin, 107 Idaho 267, 688 P.2d 1172 (1984)."
The majority finds that "the original complaint gave notice of the legal theory based on a wrongful death action." I cannot agree with the majority because the original complaint in the state lawsuit was carefully drafted so that it alleged a survival cause of action, not a wrongful death cause of action. Counsel for the personal representative conceded during oral argument that the complaint in the state lawsuit was intended to allege a survival action, not a wrongful death action. Although defendants' counsel argued in federal court that the state lawsuit was a wrongful death action, the nature of the cause of action alleged in the complaint should be based upon the wording of the complaint, not upon the arguments made by defense counsel in a related case. The district court was correct in stating that the original complaint in the state lawsuit did not give notice of a cause of action for wrongful death.
Although I cannot agree that the original complaint in the state lawsuit gave notice of a wrongful death action, I agree that the district court erred in holding that a claim for wrongful death would not relate back to the date of the original complaint. The
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|