Court Opinion

ID: 9625769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:50:54.658521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:15.066505
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Judge,
dissenting. I dissent from the ruling in Division 2 of the opinion and to the resulting judgment that the trial court erred in overruling the defense of the statute of limitation as to the wrongful death damages sought to be recovered in count 2 of the amended pleading.
In my opinion, the majority places too much emphasis on the fact that the claim as first asserted was a contract action solely against the insurance company (based primarily on the demand for judgment construed by the majority to be against the insurance company) and that the amendment was based on a tort solely against the other defendant. The other defendant, Murray *158Chevrolet Company, Inc., was already a party to the case and had filed an answer therein. Under the provisions of Section 54 (c) of the Civil Practice Act (Code Ann. § 81A-154 (c)) "Every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings ...” and this "makes it clear that the demand for judgment is no part of the claimant’s cause of action.” Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.), Vol 2A, § 8.18,p. 1803.
The critical element here is not difference in "cause of action” but the facts or transaction on which the claim is predicated. "The Federal rules [from which ours were practically copied] have broadened the meaning of the concept of 'cause of action,’ shifting the emphasis from a theory of law as to the cause of action, to the specified conduct of the defendant upon which plaintiff relies to enforce his claim. And an amendment which changes only the legal theory of the action or adds another claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, will relate back. Thus, an amendment will relate back which . . . changes the theory of the action from one based on contract to one sounding in tort,... or increases the amount of damages claimed.” Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.), Vol 3, § 15.15 [3], pp. 1027-1030. See also Nola Electric Co. v. Reilly, 93 FSupp. 164 (14 FR Serv. 3.2, Case 1), cert. den., 340 U. S. 951 (71 SC 570, 95 LE 685); White v. Holland Furnace Co., 31 FSupp. 32 (2 FR Serv. 15 (c).1, Cases 3, 5). We are not concerned here with a trial had under a pleading based on contract rights and tried on that theory, where the plaintiff then claims relief based on theory of tort. See in this connection Rasmus v. A. O. Smith Corp., 158 FSupp. 70.
There being no actual substitution of parties or new parties added and the transaction being the same, and the amendment setting forth a tort action arising out of the same transaction, the amendment, according to the express terms of the statute, related back to the filing of the original complaint which was filed within the period required by the statute of limitation applicable.