ILNews

COA: personal injury action should be allowed to proceed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals examined how the 120-day time limit under Indiana Trial Rule 15(C) on amending a complaint to substitute a party interacts with the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, and held that the 120-day time limit can’t be allowed to operate prematurely to bar a claim when the statute of limitations is still running.

In Samuel D. Raisor, et al. v. Edward O. Carter, et al., No. 49A05-1010-CT-629, the issue was whether Samuel and Christy Raisor should have been allowed to amend their original personal injury complaint to include the correct owner of the bar where Samuel was allegedly assaulted by an underage patron. The Raisors brought the personal injury claim within the two-year statute of limitations, but made the amendment to include the correct bar owner – Jimmie’s Raceway Pub Inc. – after the 120-day time limit under T.R. 15(C). The Raisors didn’t learn who the correct owner was until 23 months after the alleged assault due to incorrect addresses and information listed for the pub owner.  

The trial court granted Jimmie’s motion to dismiss, finding the amended complaint was barred because the statute of limitations had expired by the time the amended complaint was filed and the 120-day period for amended complaints to add a new party had expired.

The appellate court reversed, finding that even though the 120-day period to amend the complaint had passed by the time the correct pub owner learned of the suit, the two-year limitation period for the personal injury action hadn’t expired. Because Jimmie’s gained actual knowledge of the lawsuit three weeks before the statute of limitations expired, the owner's defenses weren’t prejudiced, wrote Judge Terry Crone. The judge also pointed out Jimmie’s owner actually discovered the mistake before the Raisors because a mail carrier had delivered a piece of mail addressed to him to the correct address instead of the one listed on the envelope.

Judge Crone noted that T.R. 15(C) gives a party an additional 120 days to give notice of the action, so if someone filed their complaint on the last day under the statute of limitations, they would have 120 days after the expiration date to substitute a proper party defendant.

“The fact that the Raisors filed their original complaint earlier should not work to penalize them. We do not believe that the amended trial rule was designed to shorten the period of time that plaintiffs have to file their claims,” he wrote. “Simply put, where the statute of limitations is still running, the 120-day limit found in Trial Rule 15(C) cannot be permitted to operate prematurely to bar the claim.”

The Court of Appeals also found the trial court erred by denying the Raisors’ T.R. 6(B) motion to extend the T.R.15(C) notice period, but based on their ruling on the statute of limitations issue, the equitable remedy under T.R. 6(B) isn’t necessary, wrote Judge Crone. The judges remanded for further proceedings.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT