Opinion ID: 1382335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Relation-Back Doctrine

Text: Under a previous version of Missouri's wrongful death statute, this Court addressed the application of the relation-back doctrine to appointment of a party to bring suit where there were no persons available who had a right to sue in their own names. See Forehand v. Hall, 355 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. banc 1962). [2] This Court's analysis in Forehand of the relation-back doctrine in wrongful death suits still applies. Where a wrongful death action is initiated within the limitations period by a person who has a beneficial interest in the action, but who, for lack of a court appointment, is not authorized to bring suit, the substitution by amendment of the plaintiff suing in the proper capacity, or the joinder of the necessary additional parties plaintiff, after the lapse of the [limitations] period, will relate back to the time of filing the original action and the intervening running of the statute of limitations will not bar the maintenance of the suit by the substituted plaintiff. . . . 355 S.W.2d at 945. On the other hand, if the original action was filed by one who has no legal or beneficial interest in its subject matter, the substitution of a proper party plaintiff after the statute of limitations has run will not relate back, but will be treated as a new action, which is barred by the statute of limitations. Id. Eleanore Thorson, as a grandmother, is one of the persons who can share in the proceeds of a wrongful-death judgment under section 537.095.2, because under the laws of descent, she is an heir. Section 474.010(2)(c) (If there are no children, or their descendants, father, mother, brother, sister, or their descendants, then to grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles and aunts or their descendants in equal parts;). Forehand established that the question in this case is governed by the relation-back doctrine, which is set forth in the current version of Rule 55.33(c), which applies to amendments to pleadings. [3] The general rule is that whenever a claim . . . asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the . . . occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. Rule 55.33(c). In this case, an appointment of the original plaintiff, who had an interest in the proceeds of the action, to act formally as plaintiff ad litem is in effect an amendment to the pleadings because it is the substitution of the plaintiff suing in the proper capacity. 355 S.W.2d at 945. Here, Eleanore Thorson is a living heir of Heather Thorson and has a beneficial interest in the wrongful death action. Her appointment as plaintiff ad litem will relate back to the date she filed suit. [4] Statutes of limitation were never intended to be used as swords. Rather, they are shields, primarily designed to assure fairness to defendants by prohibiting stale claims which tend to undermine the truth finding process. Mikesic v. Trinity Lutheran Hospital, 980 S.W.2d 68, 73 (Mo. App.1998) (internal citations omitted). The truth-finding process is not undermined by the relation-back of Thorson's appointment as plaintiff ad litem. Connelly and the Palmers, the defendants, suffer no prejudice or unfair surprise as they knew from the beginning what the claim was. They are not deprived of the opportunity to investigate timely and prepare their defenses. Id.