Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Hattie KNUCKLES as guardian ad litem for Robert H. KNUCKLES and Hattie Knuckles, Appellants, v. Steven Ray FRYATT, RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., John Doe d/b/a Buckets of Beer, John Doe d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Christopher K. Haynes, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Buckets Cafe, LLC, John Doe, and/or John Doe Corporation, Defendants, Of Whom John Doe d/b/a Buckets of Beer, John Doe d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Christopher K. Haynes, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets of Beer, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Buckets Cafe, LLC, are Respondents.
Hattie Knuckles appeals the dismissal of her personal injury claim against John Doe d/b/a Buckets of Beer, John Doe d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Christopher K. Haynes, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets of Beer, Christopher K. Haynes d/b/a Buckets Cafe, Buckets Cafe, LLC (collectively Buckets), arguing that the trial court erred in granting Buckets' motion for summary judgment on the ground the statute of limitations had not run because the amended complaint related back to the date of the original complaint. We disagree.
We affirm1 because the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations passed. The amended complaint does not relate back to the date of the original complaint under Rule 15(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure because new defendants were added. Relation back to original pleadings applies only when an existing party is changed, not when a new party is added to a complaint. Cline v. J.E. Faulkner Homes, Inc., 359 S.C. 367, 371 n. 2, 597 S.E.2d 27, 29 n. 2 (Ct.App.2004) (holding that relation back to original pleadings applies only when an existing party is changed, not when a new party is added to a complaint); See Jackson v. Doe, 342 S.C. 552, 558, 537 S.E.2d 567, 570 (Ct.App.2000) (finding that Rule 15(c) addresses correcting or substituting a party, not adding a party). Here, the parties added by the amendment were in addition to the John Doe party and therefore, this was not a correction or substitution of a party. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM.
THOMAS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 2011–UP–025.
Decided: January 25, 2011
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)