Knuckles v. Fryatt

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

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.

Appeal From Lexington County

 R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-025

Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed January
25, 2011

AFFIRMED

J. Kendall Few, of Greer, for Appellants.

William A. Coates and Joseph O. Smith, both of Greenville, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  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
affirm[1] 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.

THOMAS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

[1] We decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.