Linda & Wilburn Grantham v. Jackson-Madison Co General Hospital ( 1997 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
FILED
October 27, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
FOR PUBLICATION
LINDA GRANTHAM and ) Filed: October 27, 1997
WILBURN GRANTHAM, )
)
APPELLANTS, ) MADISON CIRCUIT
) NO. C-94-46
v. )
)
JACKSON-MADISON COUNTY ) HON. WHIT LAFON, JUDGE
GENERAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT, )
)
APPELLEE. ) NO. 02S01-9611-CV-00095
FOR APPELLANTS: FOR APPELLEE:
William G. Hatton Jerry D. Kizer, Jr.
Bolivar Dale Conder, Jr.
Jackson
OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED; HOLDER, J.
TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED
OPINION
This appeal addresses a plaintiff's ability to amend a complaint to reflect a
defendant's correct name under the relation back provisions of Rule 15.03. The
trial court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The appellate court
reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were precluded from amending their
complaint to reflect a new defendant because notice was served on the
defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations. We reverse the
appellate court and hold that: (1) the amendment did not name a new party for
purposes of Rule 15.03; and (2) the amendment relates back to the original filing
of the complaint.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs, Linda and Wilbur Grantham, filed suit against the
defendant, Jackson-Madison County Hospital District, alleging that Ms.
Grantham sustained injuries when she fell in defendant's parking lot on February
20, 1993. Their complaint was filed on February 18, 1994, and named Jackson-
Madison County General Hospital as the defendant. The hospital's agent for
service of process was served on February 24, 1994.
The hospital filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiff omitted the
word "District" from its name and that Jackson-Madison County General Hospital
was not a legal entity capable of being sued. The plaintiffs filed a motion to
amend their complaint to include the word "District." The trial court granted the
plaintiffs' motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the plaintiffs were
attempting to add a new party. The appellate court held that the amendment did
2
not relate back to the filing of the original complaint because the defendant was
served after the expiration of time for commencement of action.
ANALYSIS
The present case is controlled by Tenn. R. Civ. P., Rule 15.03. Although
Rule 15.03 has been amended, the plaintiffs' action was filed prior to the
effective date of the 1995 amendment.1 The rule in effect when the plaintiffs' suit
was initiated read as follows:
15.03 Relation Back of Amendments. Whenever the claim or
defense asserted in the amended pleadings arose out of the
conduct, transaction or occurrences 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 the claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing
provision is satisfied and if, within the period provided by law for
commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by
the 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
misnomer or other similar mistake concerning the identity of the
proper party, the action would have been brought against him.
Except as above specified, nothing in this rule shall be construed to
extend any period of limitations governing the time in which any
action may be brought.
Accordingly, there are two inquiries under Rule 15.03: (1) did the amendment
change or add a new party; and (2) if so, did the amending party satisfy the
notice requirements. Amendments neither changing nor adding a new party may
relate back to the time of the original pleading without the second inquiry being
made.
1
Rule 15.03 was amended to allow relation back if the new party to be
brought in by amendment has received notice of the institution of the action
within 120 days of commencement of the action. Tenn. R. Civ. P., Rule 15.03.
3
The defendant contends and the appellate court found that this case is
controlled by Duke v. Replogle Enterprises, a/k/a/ Replogle Sawmill, 891 S.W.2d
205 (Tenn. 1994). In Duke, this court held that amendments adding a new party
will relate back to the time of the original complaint only if the new party being
added had notice of the original filing prior to the expiration of the statute of
limitations. Id. at 206. Duke, however, did not address a mislabeling of the
correct party.
We believe that the plaintiffs did not select the wrong defendant but
simply mislabeled the right defendant. Plaintiffs properly identified the defendant
in several respects. They referred to the defendant as a health care facility
doing business in Madison County, Tennessee. They served the complaint on
the defendant's proper agent for service of process at defendant's place of
business. They also approximated the defendant's name in the caption of the
complaint as "Jackson-Madison County General Hospital." The defendant's
correct name is "Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District." Every
word in the plaintiffs' designation appears in the correct designation. The sole
difference is that the plaintiffs omitted the word "District." See Datskow v.
Teledyne, 899 F.2d 1298 (2nd Cir. 1990) (holding amendment did not add new
party where Teledyne, Inc. was amended to Teledyne Industrial, Inc.).
The facts in this case may be contrasted with those in Duke v. Replogle
Enterprises, a/k/a Replogle Sawmill, 891 S.W.2d 205 (Tenn. 1994). The plaintiff
in Duke filed a complaint against "Replogle Enterprises, a/k/a, Replogle
Sawmill." The plaintiff then attempted to amend the complaint to include the
name of an individual, Nathan Replogle. Id. at 205. This Court found that the
amendment added a new party and was subject to the notice requirements
under Tenn. R. Civ. P., Rule 15.03. Id. at 206.
4
Unlike Duke, the plaintiffs in the present case are not attempting to add
the name of an individual or another business. They are merely attempting to
correct the mislabeling of the party they intended to sue. We find that the
approximation in the original complaint was sufficiently close to prevent prejudice
by apprising the defendant it was being sued. The amended complaint's claim
"arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth . . . in the
original [complaint]." Tenn. R. Civ. P., Rule 15.03. The requirements of Rule
15.03 have been satisfied, and the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their
complaint. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellee, Jackson-Madison
County General Hospital District, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Janice M. Holder, Justice
Concurring:
Anderson, C.J.
Drowota, Reid, and Birch, J.J.
5