Hol' Dir diese Lernkarten, lerne & bestehe Prüfungen. Kostenlos! Auch auf iPhone/Android!

Crompton wanted to amend answer re:shredder.  Amendments allowed if justice requires - but would it be prejudicial to P?

H - not permitted to amend, b/c statute of limitations had run and would prevent P from suing the right party

P injured on waterslide, sued Aquaslide (the alleged mfctr).  3 insurance agents investigated and said it was an Aquaslide slide (D, water park, P's employer who held the event).  Amendment allowed, even though statute of limitations had run.

H - D relied on conclusions of 3 insurance companies, so mistake was ok.

Goodman wasn't paid, sued Praxair.  Should have sued Praxair, Inc.  Wanted to amend and his amendment to relate back.

H - tests to allow relating back of party name:
1 - if claim is same, and just party name changes
2 - new party had received notice of claim and so would not be prejudiced
3 - new party should have known it was a case of mistaken ID

Notes:
Didn't want to disturb Maryland's statute of limitations, wants to protect D repose and stale evidence prob.  But not the case here, b/c co. knew mistake.

David v. Crompton
Zielinski
Shepard v. Darrah
Beeck v. Aquaslide
Goodman v. Praxair