Court Opinion

ID: 9562130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:22:05.388263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:13.039028
License: Public Domain

Justice Martin
dissenting in part.
I dissent from the majority’s holding in part I of its opinion. I find that plaintiff has complied with Rule 15(c) with respect to the amended complaint against defendant Niazi. Paragraph 6 of the original complaint places Niazi on notice of the transactions to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading. It alleges plaintiff is entitled to damages for the wrongful death of Henry caused by the negligence of defendants Deen, Hall, and Niazi acting jointly and severally. The original pleading gives defendant Niazi notice of the events involved. Burcl v. Hospital, 306 N.C. 214, 293 S.E. 2d 85 (1982). The notice obtained from the original complaint is not vitiated by the failure to specify in the prayer for relief that plaintiff sought damages for wrongful death. The prayer for relief is not an essential part of the complaint and may be disregarded as immaterial. Board of Education v. Board of Education, 259 N.C. 280, 130 S.E. 2d 408 (1963). The nature of plaintiffs cause of action is to be determined from the pleadings, not the prayer for relief. Highway Commission v. Thornton, 271 N.C. 227, 156 S.E. 2d 248 (1967).
The present rules of civil procedure adopt a form of notice pleading. Shugar v. Guill, 304 N.C. 332, 283 S.E. 2d 507 (1981). They should be liberally construed, with the goal of justice always kept in mind. While the original complaint may not be sufficient to sustain a verdict based on wrongful death, Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161 (1970), it is sufficient notice to allow the proposed amendment to relate back to the time the original complaint was filed. Even though a new cause of action is alleged in the amendment, relation back will not be defeated. Burcl v. Hospital supra, 306 N.C. 214, 293 S.E. 2d 85; Clary v. Nivens, 12 N.C. App. 690, 184 S.E. 2d 374 (1971). My view of the law is buttressed by decisions from the state of New York based on section 203(e) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, a counterpart to our Rule 15(c). Tobias v. Kesseler, 18 A.D. 2d 1094, 239 N.Y.S. 2d 554 (1963) (allowing malpractice amendment to relate back to original complaint alleging assault and trespass); *93Berlin v. Goldberg, 48 Misc. 2d 1073, 266 N.Y.S. 2d 475 (1966) (allowing relation back of wrongful death amendment when plaintiff died after institution of action for personal injuries). Likewise, the federal decisions support this conclusion. Bradbury v. Dennis, 368 F. 2d 905 (10th Cir. 1966); Newman v. Freeman, 262 F. Supp. 106 (E.D. Pa. 1966) (adding parent’s claim to minor’s injury action).
The Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court should have allowed the amendment. Except as above stated, I concur in the majority opinion.
Justice Frye joins in this dissent.