Richardson v. Dodson, 91-SC-707-DG
| Decision Date | 25 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-SC-707-DG,91-SC-707-DG |
| Citation | 832 S.W.2d 888 |
| Parties | William D. RICHARDSON, Administrator of the Estate of Katherine Hope, Deceased, Appellant, v. James C. DODSON, M.D., and Logan Memorial Hospital, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Larry W. Cook, Russellville, for appellant.
John David Cole, Matthew J. Baker, Cole, Moore & McCracken, Murry A Raines, Janet Jobe Crocker, English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley, Bowling Green, for appellees.
The issue presented here is whether the timely filing of a complaint by the decedent's son in his individual capacity is sufficient under CR 15.03 to permit the subsequent amendment of the complaint naming the personal representative as plaintiff to relate back.
Appellant, pro se, timely filed a complaint sounding in tort against appellees for the wrongful death of his mother. In paragraph one, he alleged that he "is the natural son of Katherine Hope." Thereafter, appellant was appointed administrator of the decedent's estate and prior to the filing of any motion or responsive pleading, filed an amended complaint. In the first paragraph of the amended complaint, he properly alleged his status as administrator of the decedent's estate, but by this time, the applicable statute of limitations had run.
Appellees moved to dismiss on grounds that the claim was time-barred and their motion was sustained by the trial court. As grounds for its order, the court held that by virtue of KRS 411.130(1), a statute which requires prosecution of wrongful death cases by the decedent's personal representative, and by virtue of KRS 413.140(1)(e), a statute which allows a period of one year for the bringing of such actions, the amended complaint was not timely and did not relate back to the original complaint. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and held that an action brought by one who has no right to bring it is a nullity and substitution of the proper party is of no avail if the period of limitation has run. We granted discretionary review and now reverse the courts below.
CR 15.03(1) provides that:
"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 pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading." (Emphasis added.)
In Modern Bakery, Inc. v. Brashear, Ky., 405 S.W.2d 742 (1966), we interpreted the relation back amendment rule and developed a test for its application as follows:
"As long as the real party in interest, by amended complaint, is substituted as a plaintiff after the statute of limitations has run on the original cause of action, the amendment of the complaint to substitute that party relates back, and the action by the new plaintiff is not barred."
By application of this test to the facts presented here, there can be little doubt of the result. Appellant attempted, despite his lack of capacity at that time, to assert a claim for wrongful death against appellees.
Appellees have sought to distinguish Modern Bakery on grounds that the appointment of the personal representative was alleged to have been made prior to the expiration of the statutory period,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. Lee
...person was unwarranted where the purpose of a statute of limitations is to assure fairness by prohibiting stale claims); Richardson v. Dodson, 832 S.W.2d 888 (Ky.1992) (holding that pro se complaint filed by a decedent's son in his individual capacity was an amendable defect, as the purpose......
-
Beard v. Branson
...manner, and they were not prejudiced in any way by Mr. Hartley's temporary lack of legal representation. See, e.g. , Richardson v. Dodson , 832 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Ky. 1992) (holding that pro se wrongful death complaint filed by the decedent's son was timely in light of the fact that the defen......
-
Gailor v. Alsabi
...in either the complaint or the amended complaint; thus, CR 15.03(2)(b) could not apply to it. Appellee's reliance on Richardson v. Dodson, Ky., 832 S.W.2d 888 (1992) is misplaced. In that case, the plaintiff sued the proper defendants within the period of limitations. His error was that he ......
-
U.S. v. Craft
...the date of death to appoint a personal representative and commence a cause of action for wrongful death." Id. See also Richardson v. Dodson, 832 S.W.2d 888 (Ky.1992); Everley v. Wright, 872 S.W.2d 95 The indictment in this case is based on a claim that the qualification of the administratr......