 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Larue v. Harris7/19/2005
nsaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.
As can be seen, this rule allows a plaintiff to change the party against whom he or she is asserting a claim, after the statute of limitation has expired, so long as the claims made in the original and amended pleadings arise out of the same occurrence, the party being added had notice and knowledge of the claim, and that party will not prejudiced in maintaining his or her defense. The claims alleged in LaRue's original and amended complaints arose out of the same auto accident. Farmers had notice and knowledge since at least 1998, and because it shared a community of interest with the Estate, its notice and knowledge were imputable to the Estate. Neither Farmers nor the Estate was prejudiced in maintaining a defense because, except for substituting the Estate in place of Harris, the amended claim was the same as the original one. The requirements of CR 15(c) were met, and the trial court did not err by ruling that the action had been timely commenced.
The Estate argues that an amended complaint cannot relate back unless the original complaint was 'perfected,' meaning that the original complaint must have been filed within three years and served within three years plus 90 days. This argument is not supported by CR 15(c), which requires that the amended claim arise out of the same occurrence as the original but says nothing about 'perfecting' the original. More importantly, the argument is illogical. Modernly, the main purpose of serving any complaint, whether it be original or amended, is to give notice. In general, notice is better if given by an amended (corrected) complaint rather than by an original (uncorrected) complaint. Given that RCW 4.16.170 permits a plaintiff who files his or her complaint within three years to give notice by serving an original (uncorrected) complaint within the ensuing 90 days, is it logical to say that a plaintiff cannot give notice by filing and serving an amended (corrected) complaint within the same 90 days (assuming of course that the other requirements of CR 15(c) are met)? We think not.
The Estate argues that 'Larue did not perfect her claim within the statutory period because the only defendant named in the original complaint . . . was never served.' Again however, the argument seems illogical. Why would the law want to require a plaintiff to 'perfect' his original complaint by giving notice to a person whom he currently realizes is the wrong defendant especially where, as here, that person has died?
The Estate relies heavily on Young v. Estate of Snell, but that case is not on point. In Young, the plaintiff neither served the original complaint, nor filed and served the amended complaint, within the three-year-plus-90-day period allowed by RCW 4.16.170. Here, LaRue filed the original within three years, then filed and served the amended complaint within the following 90 days.
The parties remaining arguments lack merit or need not be reached. LaRue is awarded her costs and reasonable attorney fees on appeal, provided that she complies with RAP 18.1.
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|