Case Title: Karash v. Pigott

Citation: 530 S.W.2d 775

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1975-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
530 S.W.2d 775 (1975) Janice KARASH et vir., Appellants, v. J.D. PIGOTT et al., Appellees. Supreme Court of Tennessee. December 1, 1975. *776 James F. Schaeffer, D. Franklin Moore, Jr., Memphis, for appellants. Albert T. McRae, Nelson, Norvell, Wilson, McRae, Ivy & Sevier, Memphis, for Pigott and Free. Gavin M. Gentry, Armstrong, Allen, Braden, Goodman, McBride & Prewitt, Memphis, for Baptist Hospital. HENRY, Justice. The only issue presented on this appeal in a medical malpractice action is the right of the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Suit was instituted in the Circuit Court at Memphis, on 31 May, 1973, against the Baptist Hospital and three physicians. In the first count of the complaint, plaintiffs allege the admittance of Mrs. Janice Karash to the hospital, and the uneventful performance of a hysterectomy followed by a blood transfusion on 2 June, 1972, where allegedly impure or defective blood was dispensed or sold by the hospital, resulting in serum hepatitis. This count sounds in strict liability. It was subsequently dismissed, except for background factual averments, on motion for summary judgment. In the second count plaintiffs allege negligent failure to examine the blood, failure to warn of the dangers and risks involved, failure to obtain informed consent and unreasonable exposure to the risk of serum hepatitis. This count sounds in negligence. On 1 January, 1975, after interrogatories had been propounded and answered and after depositions had been taken, plaintiffs moved the court for leave to amend so as to incorporate in the complaint a count charging assault and battery. This count would read, in pertinent part as follows: On 31 January, 1975, the trial judge denied the motion to amend. In disposing of plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, the trial judge held that "the proposed Amendment to Complaint constitutes a new cause of action which is barred by the statute of limitations." Pursuant to § 27-305, T.C.A., the trial judge made a proper certification and permitted this appeal, which has been perfected. We have elected to review the matter. This controversy is virtually concluded by our holding in Branch v. Warren, 527 S.W.2d 89 (Tenn. 1975), wherein we said: The hospital insists that the proposed amendment states a new cause of action and, as such, is barred by the one-year statute of limitation. We disagree. The time-honored "new cause of action" objection to amendments has been substantially eroded by the New Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15.03 has never been construed by our courts; however, its language is so clear and unequivocal that it is virtually self-construing. In pertinent part it declares: The great liberality of this Rule is convincingly demonstrated by the ensuing provisions permitting a new party, under certain circumstances, to be brought in notwithstanding the fact that the statute has run at the time of the amendment. Clearly, the assault and battery, as charged in the proposed amendment, if it occurred, arose out of and was a part and parcel of the conduct, transaction and occurrence set forth in the original complaint. The New Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to insure that cases and controversies be determined upon their merits and not upon legal technicalities or procedural niceties.[1] Rule 15.03, Tenn.R.Civ.P., to the extent here pertinent, is identical with Rule 15(c) Fed.R.Civ.P. Numerous cases construing Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules are cited by appellants. White v. Holland Furnace Co., 31 F. Supp. 32 (E.D.Ohio 1939); Green, et al. v. Walsh, et al., 21 F.R.D. 15 (E.D.Wis. 1957); United States v. Templeton, 199 F. Supp. 179 (E.D. Tenn. 1961); Blair, et al. v. Durham, 134 F.2d 729 (6 Cir.1943); Lauritzen, et al. v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 8 F.R.D. 237 (E.D.Tenn. 1948). On remand the tendered amendment will be allowed. This action is Reversed and remanded. FONES, C.J., MATHERNE, Special Justice, and COOPER and HARBISON, JJ., concur. [1] See Comment, The New Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. D. Paine, 37 Tenn.L. Rev. 501, 511 (Winter 1970).