Opinion ID: 1964006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Worsham Appeal

Text: Worsham contends (i) that the wrongful death claim of Sylvia Hall Williams for mental anguish was barred by limitations; (ii) that the wrongful death claim of Raynetta Renee Fowlkes was barred by limitations, and (iii) that the wrongful death claim of Raynetta Renee Fowlkes was barred by her illegitimacy. Under the view we take of the case, the first two contentions are dispositive, and we need not consider the third. The original declaration was clearly framed to cover pecuniary loss: the first two counts for the decedent's pain and suffering and medical and funeral expenses, respectively. The third count was for Mrs. Williams' loss of support. The first amended declaration added to count three a claim for damages for mental anguish. We agree with Worsham that the addition of this claim was barred by limitations. The accident occurred on 22 January 1971. At that time Code (1957, 1970 Repl. Vol.) Art. 67, § 4 (a) required that the action be brought within two years of death. [4] By Chapter 352 of the Laws of 1969, to Article 67 there had been added a new § 4 (b) permitting the recovery of damages for emotional pain and suffering, in addition to those for pecuniary loss, in the event of the death of a spouse or minor child. This recovery was available to Mrs. Williams at the time suit was filed by her on 20 January 1972. The amended declaration asserting the additional claim for mental anguish was filed on 21 March 1973, more than two years after the cause of action arose. We have heretofore held that the period within which an action for wrongful death must be brought is more closely analogous to a condition precedent than to the traditional concept of a statute of limitations, although it has been so characterized frequently in our cases, Smith v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 266 Md. 52, 55-56, 291 A.2d 452, 454-55 (1972). See The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 214 (1886). In Slate v. Zitomer, Church v. Gasperich, 275 Md. 534, 543, 341 A.2d 789, 795 (1975), we held that Chapter 784 of the Laws of 1971, effective 1 July 1971, increasing the period of limitations in wrongful death actions from two to three years could not be construed as applying retrospectively to causes of action arising between 1 July 1969 and 1 July 1971. In any event, an amended declaration filed after the expiration of a statute of limitations will be barred, if the amended declaration states a new cause of action or a new theory of liability, Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Phoenix Svgs. & Loan Ass'n, 239 Md. 195, 201, 210 A.2d 515, 518 (1965); Cline v. Fountain Rock Lime & Brick Co., 214 Md. 251, 258, 134 A.2d 304, 307-08 (1957); Schuck v. Bramble, 122 Md. 411, 413, 89 A. 719, 720 (1914); 3 J. Poe, Pleading and Practice § 189 at 291-95 (6th ed. 1975); 2 J. Poe, Pleading and Practice § 189 at 138, 140 (5th ed. 1925); 18 Md. L. Rev. 161, 162 (1958). See Dale v. Half Hollow Hills School, Cent. Sch. Dist. #5, 37 App. Div.2d 778, 325 N.Y.S.2d 267 (Sup. Ct. App. Div.2d Dep't 1971) (dictum that interposition of a claim for mental anguish in a wrongful death case by amendment would be a new cause of action instituted subsequent to the time limited by statute, and, therefore, was barred) and Smith v. Mercer, 276 N.C. 329, 172 S.E.2d 489 (1970) (which held that a new statute permitting recovery of damages for solatium under a wrongful death statute created a new cause of action). To similar effect are Totten v. Loventhal, 373 S.W.2d 421 (Ky. 1963); Serio v. Slifkin, 291 Ill. App. 614, 9 N.E.2d 422 (1937), Paskes v. Buonaguro, 249 N.Y.S.2d 943 (Sup. Ct. Spec. Term 1964). Contrary results based on the same reasoning have been reached in Crowe v. Houseworth, 272 Md. 481, 325 A.2d 592 (1974); Doughty v. Prettyman, 219 Md. 83, 90, 148 A.2d 438, 441-42 (1959) (amendments related back which stated same operational facts, did not introduce a new theory of liability, but merely spelled out in detail the basis of the alleged liability); State ex rel. Cavanaugh v. The Arundel Park Corp., 218 Md. 484, 489, 147 A.2d 427, 429-30 (1959) (amendments related back which were but a different statement of the same theory of action consistently based on negligence); Brooks v. Childress, 198 Md. 1, 81 A.2d 47 (1951); State ex rel. Zier v. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co., 98 Md. 35, 40-41, 56 A. 385, 386 (1903) (amendments related back where both original declaration and amended declaration were predicated upon defendant's negligence and were, therefore, same cause of action); Western Union Tel. Co. v. State ex rel. Nelson, 82 Md. 293, 33 A. 763 (1896) (amendment corrected name of one of two corporate defendants). The point is, of course, that a claim for mental anguish is a totally different cause of action, requiring different proof and involving a measure of damages differing from that in an action for pecuniary loss in the traditional sense. In Wittel v. Baker, 10 Md. App. 531, 537-38, 272 A.2d 57, 60 (1970), cert. denied (1971), the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the enactment of Art. 67, § 4 (b) was a change in substantive law, which created a new cause of action. See 2 S. Speiser, Recovery for Wrongful Death, § 11:58 at 281-84 (2d ed. 1975). Mrs. Williams' declaration, as originally filed, was for damages for pain and suffering, medical and funeral expenses and pecuniary loss. As to the latter, recovery would have been minimal, since she could have recovered only for those years which remained of her son's minority. [5] State v. Prince George's County, 207 Md. 91, 107, 113 A.2d 397, 404 (1955). The mental anguish count which was added by the first amendment was posited on an entirely different cause of action and would have brought into play a wholly distinct measure of damages, one which could well have been measured by the joint lives of Mrs. Williams and her son. Because the amended declaration stated a new cause of action, it was barred. The second amendment shared the infirmity of the first, stemming not from the addition of a new party, which is permitted by the Wrongful Death Act at any time before final judgment, Rule Q 43, but because it introduced a new and additional predicate for recovery. This is far different from the amendments permitted in Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Webber, 29 Md. App. 256, 262-65, 347 A.2d 865, 869-70 (1975), cert. denied (1976); Brooks v. Childress, supra, 198 Md. 1, and State ex rel. Zier v. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co., supra, 98 Md. at 40-41, where the changes were in form rather than substance; that is, the amended statement of the cause of action was different but the cause of action itself remained the same.