Opinion ID: 1385107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: relation back of amendment

Text: CR 15(c) allows an amendment to relate back to the date of the original pleading [w]henever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading ... An amendment stating a time-barred new cause of action is not allowed where the amendment involves an unrelated event occurring at a different time. Olson v. Roberts & Schaeffer Co., 25 Wn. App. 225, 228, 607 P.2d 319 (1980). [1] At common law, each publication of a defamatory utterance ( e.g., each sale of a book) constituted a separate cause of action. R. Sack, Libel, Slander 91 (1980); see Holden v. American News Co., 52 F. Supp. 24, 32 (E.D. Wash. 1943). Most jurisdictions have now adopted the single publication rule, which states that any one edition of a book or newspaper, or any one radio or television broadcast, is a single publication. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A(3) (1981). We find the single publication rule the better reasoned rule in light of the modern realities of mass publication and broadcasts to wide audiences. In this case, the amendment sought to add statements made on the 11 p.m. newscast, including the false statement that bail bond interests contributed approximately $50,000 to Herron's election campaign. The 11 p.m. newscast was the result of a conscious independent act, using a new script and broadcaster, and so clearly constitutes a separate publication, even under the single publication rule. See Libel, Slander, at 92. The amendment does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint because the statements did not arise from the same conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original complaint. CR 15(c). The trial court did not err in denying the amendment. The second broadcast is, however, evidence of KING's actual malice.