Opinion ID: 2264756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Merits of Judah's Underlying Tort Claims

Text: The theories of liability advanced by Judah, though novel, may not be entirely devoid of merit. [8] However, because William Ragsdale has never been made a party to this lawsuit, our disposition of the respondeat superior issue makes it unnecessary for us to address the trial court's alternative bases for its rulings. In her original complaint, Judah identified the man who evicted her as John Doe. During discovery it was learned that José and William Ragsdale lived in the apartment provided to Wallace Ragsdale as partial compensation for his services as resident manager. Given this new information, Judah amended her complaint to substitute José Ragsdale for John Doe as the third defendant. It soon became apparent, however, that William, rather than José, was responsible for evicting Judah and Dews from the lobby of the building; in fact, the undisputed evidence established that José was not even in the building on the date in question and played no role in the incident. [9] Although Judah was well aware of this fact, as shown by her repeated references to William Ragsdale as the man who evicted her in all of her subsequent pleadings and throughout this appeal, she failed to amend her complaint to substitute William for José. [10] William Ragsdale was never named as a defendant in the action, nor was he identified as a party to this appeal. Thus the only theory upon which Judah can proceed here is that Reiner and Morris are vicariously liable for the acts of William Ragsdale. She has no outstanding claims against William Ragsdale in his individual capacity. Consequently, even if we were to find some or all of the trial court's alternative grounds for rejecting Judah's tort claims erroneous, our holding that Reiner and Morris are not liable for the acts of William Ragsdale would require us to affirm the trial court's decision.