Articles Posted in Litigation Strategies

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals wrote a helpful opinion in Morel v. DaimlerChrysler AG for product attorneys who get the name of the defendant wrong when filing just before the statute of limitations expires. The court elevated substance over form in finding the claim “relates back” under federal law.

The page was updated in 2023 to give people the Maryland law on the relation back doctrine they were looking for when they found this page.

What Is “Relates Back” All About?

The “relates back” doctrine refers to a legal principle that allows an amended complaint to relate back to the date of the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes. In other words, if an amended complaint is filed after the statute of limitations has expired, the amended complaint can still be considered timely filed if it relates back to the original complaint.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Maryland Rules, an amended complaint can relate back to the date of the original complaint if the claims in the amended complaint arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the claims in the original complaint. In addition, the party being sued must have received notice of the claims in the original complaint within the time required by law.

For example, if a plaintiff files a complaint alleging that a defendant negligently caused a car accident but later discovers additional evidence that the defendant was tried to hit the defendant’s car because of road rage, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint adding a claim for punitive damages based on the intentional act. If the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint, the plaintiff may still be able to pursue the claim for punitive damages even if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired.

Facts of Morel v. DaimlerChrysler

This is every parents’ nightmare. A four-year-old boy got into his grandfathered unlocked 1987 Mercedes-Benz 300 SDL.  While playing in the car, the vehicle rolled backward, pinning his six-and-a-half-month old brother under the vehicle. The infant died later that day.

The plaintiffs’ product liability lawsuit alleged that the design of the Mercedes-Benz caused the child’s death, alleging a “gallimaufry” of product liability theories against Daimler-Chrysler Corporation.  The gist was that the Plaintiffs claimed they defectively designed that the Mercedes and that it lacked adequate warnings. They claimed that the car was defectively designed because it did not have a key shift interlock (KTSI), brake shift interlock (BTSI) or push-button gear shift lever, all of which, plaintiffs alleged, would have prevented the child’s death.

The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, naming Daimler-Chrysler as the defendant. Daimler-Chrysler moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had never manufactured or sold Mercedes-Benz vehicles, and that the plaintiffs had sued the wrong party. The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to substitute Daimler AG as the defendant, but Daimler AG moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that the adult plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. The district court applied Puerto Rico’s relation-back rule and determined that the amendment did not relate back, and granted Daimler AG’s motion. The plaintiffs appealed.

Continue reading

I was trying an auto accident case recently where the Plaintiff’s lost wages were at issue. The Plaintiff did not have an “off slip” from a doctor. Instead, she took off work when she felt like her pain dictated taking a day off. On cross-examination, my client was grilled—over objection—about whether the medical records sitting at the trial table contained an “off slip” from a doctor. The client admitted – somewhat sheepishly that she got no note.

In his State of the Union address in January 2004, George W. Bush told the American people, “We do not need a permission slip to defend America.” How much energy do you think the administration spent to come up with that line? When a metaphor comes out of the Republican machine—and the Democratic machine, too, to be fair—they gave it some thought. Regarding the Republicans, George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant offers great analysis into the GOP’s careful consideration of the use of language and metaphors. Lakoff writes:

What is going on with a permission slip? He could have just said, “We won’t ask permission.” But talking about a permission slip is different. Think about when you last needed a permission slip. Think about who has to ask for a permission slip. Think about who is being asked. Think about the relationship between them.

Personally, a permission slip reminds me of being a kid, which reminds me of fun. But I get the point. In my case, my client was a well-respected scientist. The notion of this near workaholic scientist needing a permission slip to take time off from work was more than a little ridiculous.

One bizarre transformation that occurs when a citizen becomes a juror is the development of a poker face. Something about that power that turns people into Mike McDermott. (“Listen, here’s the thing. If you can’t spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table, then you are the sucker.”) I would like a psychologist to write an article about this phenomenon. Continue reading

Wisconsin Lawyer (link since removed) has an interesting article on the impact a juror’s political bent has on the amount of damages awarded in personal injury cases.

The study contained 476 mock jurors who identified themselves as either Democrats or Republicans. The jurors took part in mock trials for cases involving a personal injury, product liability, or medical malpractice and were divided into four basic categories of damages, which were determined based on how much they awarded during a mock trial: no damages, low damages, medium damages, and high damages.

No Difference in Party Affiliation

The results showed that being a self-described Republican or Democrat was not predictive of the damage award. In fact, 22.3 percent of self-described Democrats awarded no money for damages, while 20.8 percent of self-described Republicans awarded no money.

Reading over this post again in 2019, I can report that I am repeatedly amazed at how some of the strongest jurors for the plaintiff in our focus groups are often the same people that list Donald Trump as the person they admire the most on their questionnaire.  But it is not surprising.  People who support Trump are often not fans of the system and liked him because he is a disrupter.  They are not purely economic Republicans.   So on some level, this makes sense.  I don’t think I would want on the jury someone who says the person they admire most in history is Adam Smith or  Friedrich Hayek (or Paul Ryan, for example).

Does this mean Plaintiff personal injury lawyers should ignore information, assuming the lawyers have access, about a juror’s party affiliation? No. Despite this broad finding showing that there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans, even the study does not suggest that party affiliation is not a variable to consider. The study found that many stereotypical Republican attitudes from jurors lead to lower verdicts. But the study highlights that nuanced personal views are more helpful in projecting damage awards than mere party affiliation. Continue reading