Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Alabama Supreme Court Says Amended Complaint Does Not 'Relate Back'
A medical malpractice plaintiff was unable to avoid the operation of the statute of limitations by amending her complaint to assert a claim of vicarious liability against a hospital for the actions of a doctor who was not referenced in the original complaint. Prior v. Cancer Surgery of Mobile P.C., '- So.2d ”, 2006 WL 3334492 (Ala. 11/17/06).
Plaintiff's husband died in the Cancer Surgery of Mobile, P.C. hospital (Cancer Surgery) on Aug. 31, 1999, allegedly as a result of substandard medical care. On Aug. 8, 2001, plaintiff sued her husband's treating physician, Dr. Bradley Scott Davidson and Cancer Surgery, among others, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death. On Aug. 13, 2002, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint seeking to hold Cancer Surgery vicariously liable for the actions of another doctor, Dr. Gaylord T. Walker, who took over the deceased's care during part of August 1999 while Dr. Davidson was unavailable. Cancer Surgery moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, arguing that the claims based on Dr. Walker's conduct failed to 'relate back' to the date of the original pleading under Rule 15(c)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., and that they, therefore, were time-barred as exceeding the two-year statute of limitations for claims against Dr. Walker. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.