 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Durbin v. Sumner County Regional Health Systems9/6/2001
days of the filing of the first answer or first amended answer alleging such person's fault, either:
(1) Amend the complaint to add such person as a defendant pursuant to Rule 15 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and cause process to be issued for that person;
This is the procedure the appellants relied upon in their motion to amend complaint to include Dr. Caldwell as a defendant without regard to the statute of limitations.
The trial court based its order with regard to the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 on Wittlesey v. Cole, 142 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 1998) and Lipscomb v. Doe, No. 02A01-9711-CV-00293, 1998 WL 886601 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), rev'd on other grounds, 32 S.W.2d 840 (Tenn. 2000). The court stated, "TENN. CODE ANN. § 20-1-119 is not applicable to this case because clearly plaintiffs knew or should have known that Dr. Caldwell may have been at fault many months and perhaps years prior to the Hospital's amended answer."
The interpretations between two sections of this court differ as to whether this statute applies to all third parties who are named in a defendant's answer or amended answer or solely to unknown or "phantom" third parties. A panel of the middle section of this court in Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., Inc., No. M1997-00245-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 92057 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) held that it would not follow the analysis of Wittlesey and Lipscomb in its interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119. This panel held that Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119(a) applies to any third party named in an answer or amended answer, not just to heretofore unknown parties. Townes, 2001 WL 92057, *4-5. Therefore, we will follow this precedent.
Following the interpretation of this court in Townes, the appellants would be able to file an amended complaint including Dr. Caldwell within ninety days of the Hospital's filing of its amended answer. The fact that the appellants knew of Dr. Caldwell's potential liability does not nullify the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119(a).
The appellants filed a motion to amend the complaint on February 11, 1998 to add Dr. Caldwell as a defendant which was granted the same day. The appellants' filed their Second Amended Complaint on February 13, 1998. This complaint was clearly filed within ninety days of the order granting Hospital's motion to amend its answer. Therefore, the suit against Dr. Caldwell was timely.
The appellants also argue that they should be able to rely on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03, The Relation Back of Amendments, to amend their complaint. Because we have found that their action is saved from the statute of limitations by Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119, we do not need to address this issue.
For this reason, we reverse the post-trial order dismissing Dr. Caldwell on statute of limitations grounds.
III. Jury Verdict
The case went to the jury and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The appellants assert that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Our role in an appeal from a jury verdict does not allow us to reweigh the evidence or consider where the preponderance lies. Instead, we must determine whether there is any material evidence to support the verdict. If there is, we must affirm it. See Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 822, 823 (Tenn.1994); Pullen v. Textron, Inc., 845 S.W.2d 777, 780 (Tenn. Ct. App.1992). We are required to take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the verdict, assume the truth of the evidence in support thereof, allow all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict and disregard all to the contrary. Hobson v. First State Bank, 777 S
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|