Jackson v. Doe

• Decision Date: 25 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 3244.,3244.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Laurie JACKSON, Appellant, v. John DOE, a fictitious name representing an unidentified person driving an unidentified motor vehicle, and Costello Milligan, Defendants. of whom Costello Milligan is, Respondent.

342 S.C. 552

537 S.E.2d 567

Laurie JACKSON, Appellant, v. John DOE, a fictitious name representing an unidentified person driving an unidentified motor vehicle, and Costello Milligan, Defendants.

of whom Costello Milligan is, Respondent.

No. 3244.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard April 12, 2000.

Decided September 25, 2000.

G. Thomas Hill, of Hill, Hill & Hill, of Ravenel, for appellant.

Stephen P. Groves, Sr., Randall C. Stoney, Jr., and Stephen L. Brown, all of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, of Charleston, for respondent.

STILWELL, Judge:

Laurie Jackson appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Costello Milligan, arguing the court erred in finding the statute of limitations had expired. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 1994, as Jackson stood by the open door of a vehicle parked beside a gas pump at a service station, another vehicle struck the car and then drove off. The impact caused the car door to hit Jackson and, as a result, she suffered head and facial injuries. Jackson did not know who was driving the other car.

On March 17, 1997, Jackson filed her initial action against the unknown driver pursuant to the statutory scheme established by state law.¹ John Doe answered the complaint and alleged that "[t]he parties to this matter know the identity of John Doe and the Defendant, John Doe, asks for this case to be dismissed."

Almost four and a half years after the accident, on September 15, 1998, Jackson was allowed by the court to amend her complaint to add Milligan as a defendant. The attorney representing John Doe agreed to the amendment. The amended complaint retained John Doe as a named party and identified him as an unknown driver, but then added Milligan in the caption as an additional defendant. The complaint also alleged that "the Defendant, John Doe, may have been identified and, upon information and belief, his name is COSTELLO MILLIGAN." Milligan answered the amended complaint, offering a general denial but specifically denying the paragraph that alleged John Doe had been identified as Costello Milligan. Milligan also asserted certain affirmative defenses, contending the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, also, that the relation back provisions of Rule 15(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply in this circumstance.

Milligan then moved for summary judgment on the grounds of the affirmative defenses asserted in his answer. The trial court ruled in favor of Milligan, concluding that the relation back provision of Rule 15(c) did not apply and that the statute of limitations had expired.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Summary judgment is appropriate when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Cafe Assocs., Ltd. v. Gerngross, 305 S.C. 6, 9, 406 S.E.2d 162, 164 (1991). "Our standard of review in evaluating a motion for summary judgment is to liberally construe the record in favor of the nonmoving party and give the nonmoving party the benefit of all favorable inferences that might reasonably be drawn therefrom." Estes v. Roper Temp. Servs., Inc., 304 S.C. 120, 121, 403 S.E.2d 157, 158 (Ct.App.1991). Moreover, summary judgment is a drastic remedy which "`should be cautiously invoked so that no person will be improperly deprived of a trial of the disputed factual issues.'" Baughman v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 112, 410 S.E.2d 537, 543 (1991) (quoting Watson v. Southern Ry. Co., 420 F.Supp. 483, 486 (D.S.C.1975)).

DISCUSSION

Jackson argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Milligan. She contends that serving John Doe was the equivalent of serving Milligan and the service of process on John Doe tolled the applicable statute of limitations as to Milligan. We disagree.

South Carolina Code Ann. § 38-77-180 permits an injured party to file suit against an unknown owner or driver of a vehicle providing the injured party a means to collect uninsured motorist's coverage. That same section specifically allows the institution of an action against the real tortfeasor if his identity thereafter becomes known.² However, there is no provision specifically allowing John Doe and a later added or substituted party to be considered the same entity for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations. That fact, coupled with the fact that there is no mention of the statute of limitations and its relationship to any subsequent action against a later identified tortfeasor, leads to the inescapable conclusion that each statute must be separately construed and enforced according to its plain language. See City of Columbia v. American Civil Liberties Union, 323 S.C. 384, 387-88, 475 S.E.2d 747, 749 (1996) ("Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning."); Paschal v. State Election Comm'n, 317 S.C. 434, 436-37, 454 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1995) (opining that when statutory language is clear, this court has "no right to look for or impose another meaning," or "resort to subtle or forced construction in an attempt to limit or expand a statute's scope."); Ariail v. Ariail, 29 S.C. 84, 93, 7 S.E. 35, 40 (1888) ("The statute of limitations may sometimes work a great hardship in special cases; but under the principle that litigation and contention must have an ending, and that the repose and quiet of the many compensates for the loss of the few, such statutes have been adopted and strictly enforced in most countries, as wise, and as contributing to the best interests of society. Such is the doctrine in this state."); Adkins v. Comcar Indus., Inc., 316 S.C. 149, 151-52, 447 S.E.2d 228, 230 (Ct.App.1994) (explaining that an appellate court "has no legislative powers. Our sole function is to determine and, within constitutional limits, give effect to the intention of the legislature while the responsibility for the justice or wisdom of legislation rests exclusively with the legislature, whether or not we agree with the laws it enacts." (internal citation omitted)), aff'd, 323 S.C. 409, 475 S.E.2d 762 (1996).

The Supreme Court of Virginia recently ruled on a similar case. In Rivera v. Witt, 257 Va. 280, 512 S.E.2d 558 (1999), the Virginia court distinguished its earlier decision of Truman v. Spivey, 225 Va. 274, 302 S.E.2d 517 (1983). In the Truman case, the court determined that its John Doe statute treated both a John Doe defendant and a later identified uninsured defendant as one entity. In Rivera, the only distinction was that the later identified tortfeasor who was originally sued as John Doe was an insured motorist. The Rivera court concluded, "there is nothing in the uninsured motorist statute which suggests that, under the facts of this case, Doe and Witt should be treated as the same entity; therefore, the statute of limitations applies to each of them individually." Id. at 560.³ While not controlling on this court, the reasoning of the Virginia court is persuasive.

We turn now to the allied question of whether Jackson's amendment related back to her original complaint. Milligan argued, and the circuit court agreed, that the relation back provision of Rule 15(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure did not save Jackson's cause of action against Milligan.

Rule 15(c) provides:

Whenever 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 pleadings, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.

An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.

Rule 15(c), SCRCP.

There have been few South Carolina decisions discussing Rule 15(c), and none dispositive of the case before us. In Hughes v. Water World Water Slide, Inc., 314 S.C. 211, 442 S.E.2d 584 (1994), our supreme court considered whether an amendment that corrected the name of the corporate defendant related back to the filing of the original complaint. The Hughes court, quoting Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 29, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 91 L.Ed.2d 18 (1986), adopted a four-part test to aid in interpreting the requirements of Rule 15(c). Thus, Rule 15(c) requires:

(1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period.

Hughes, 314 S.C. at 214, 442 S.E.2d at 586. In Hughes, the court ruled, under the particular facts and circumstances of that case, an amendment correcting a mistake in the defendant's corporate name related back to the initial commencement of the action. Id. at 215, 442 S.E.2d at 586.

Here, Jackson did not simply correct the defendant's name or substitute one defendant for another. Rather, she added Milligan as a defendant because he may have been the driver. The language of Rule 15(c) clearly speaks to a change in party, not the addition of a defendant to an already existing defendant. In our view, the addition of a party is not the same as a substitution or change of party. See Kraly v. Vannewkirk, 69 Ohio St.3d 627, 635 N.E.2d 323 (1994) (determining that Ohio's Rule 15(c), which is similar to our...