Court Opinion

ID: 9768605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:10:07.47148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:42.299403
License: Public Domain

*913MONTGOMERY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from part of the majority opinion. I would affirm the whole case.
There are two reasons why I feel that the majority opinion is wrong. First, the relation back of the amended complaint to the original complaint is bad statutory construction. A tortious act may give rise to several causes of action. When the Legislature provided two statutes of limitation, one for personal injuries and the other for injury to personal property, it recognized two different causes of action and provided different lengths of time in which each may be brought. I cannot understand how you can have one cause of action and say that part of it is barred in one year and part is barred in five years. The relation back of the cause of action claimed in the amended complaint does violence to the statute of limitation in that type of action. It is a basic principle of statutory construction to give effect to and harmonize various statutes when possible.
My second reason for dissenting is that I feel that the appellant lost any right to litigate further his claim for personal injuries when he failed to present that question on appeal in the original action, but, instead, accepted settlement and permitted satisfaction of judgment to be entered. At the time the satisfaction of judgment' was entered he had already lost his right to appeal and to have that question litigated because he had failed to take the proper and timely steps for an appeal. I do not think he should be permitted to do so now.
OSBORNE, J., joins in this dissent.