In the 1997 personal injury case of Bresina v. Ronald E. Karlberg, Kathleen Karlberg, and Ace Paving Co., Inc., the Washington Court of Appeals, Division 2, evaluated whether Sherry Bresina’s negligence claim against Ace Paving Co., Inc. could proceed despite the company being added to the lawsuit after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of Washington laws, including CR 15(c) and RCW 4.16.170, regarding tolling and amending complaints.

Facts of the Case: Negligence and Personal Injury

On May 12, 1990, Sherry Bresina sustained injuries when she tripped over a raised sidewalk outside a Bremerton grocery store while approaching a cash machine. She alleged that the hazardous condition resulted from the negligence of the property owners and other responsible parties. On May 3, 1993—just before the statute of limitations expired—she filed a personal injury lawsuit, naming Ronald E. Karlberg and Kathleen Karlberg, along with “ABC Corporation,” as potential responsible parties. In her complaint, Bresina indicated that the exact identity of “ABC Corporation” was unknown but that it might have constructed, owned, or controlled the area where she fell.

Despite her initial filing, Bresina did not identify or serve the unknown entity “ABC Corporation” until April 1, 1994, when she amended her complaint to specifically name Ace Paving Co., Inc. This amendment was made nearly a year after the statute of limitations had expired. Ace Paving, served shortly after the amended complaint, was thus named for the first time and had no prior notice of the pending lawsuit.

Procedural History: The Statute of Limitations and Amending Complaints

After being served, Ace Paving filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Bresina’s claim was barred because the lawsuit was commenced outside the three-year statute of limitations for negligence and personal injury actions under Washington law. Bresina countered by asserting that naming “ABC Corporation” in her initial complaint satisfied the requirement to toll the statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.170. She further argued that by naming one defendant in the original complaint, the statute was tolled for all defendants, including Ace Paving.

The trial court disagreed and granted Ace Paving’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Bresina had not demonstrated “reasonable particularity” in naming “ABC Corporation” and failed to provide timely notice to Ace Paving. Bresina appealed, contending that her amendment related back to the original complaint and that the statute of limitations was effectively tolled by her initial filing.

Legal Issue: Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Washington

The key issue in this case was whether the naming of “ABC Corporation” in Bresina’s initial complaint sufficiently tolled the statute of limitations for Ace Paving under RCW 4.16.170. Washington’s CR 15(c) governs amended complaints and requires that for an amended complaint adding a new party to relate back to the original complaint, the new party must receive notice of the action within the period provided by law.

Court’s Analysis: Application of Washington Law and CR 15(c)

The Washington Court of Appeals analyzed the case under CR 15(c) and RCW 4.16.170. According to CR 15(c), an amended complaint changing or adding a party only relates back to the date of the original complaint if the newly added party had notice within the statutory period. In this case, Ace Paving did not receive notice until after the statute of limitations had expired, making CR 15(c) inapplicable.

Bresina then turned to RCW 4.16.170, which provides that an action is deemed commenced when the complaint is filed or when a summons is served on any named defendant. Citing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wn.2d 325 (1991), she argued that once she served a single named defendant, the statute of limitations was tolled for all other defendants, including unnamed parties like Ace Paving.

However, the court clarified that Sidis involved named defendants and did not automatically apply to unidentified defendants such as “ABC Corporation.” It further examined Iwai v. State, 76 Wn. App. 308 (1994), which established that for tolling to apply, the plaintiff must identify the unnamed defendant with “reasonable particularity” before the limitations period expires. Bresina had three years to discover Ace Paving’s identity but did not do so, and the court found that her designation of “ABC Corporation” was not sufficiently specific.

Court’s Conclusion: No Tolling for “ABC Corporation”

The Court of Appeals held that naming “ABC Corporation” without conducting a reasonable investigation to identify Ace Paving did not meet the requirements for tolling under Washington law. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the statute of limitations had not been tolled and that Bresina’s claim against Ace Paving was barred.

Key Takeaways for Personal Injury and Negligence Claims in Washington

1. Reasonable Particularity Requirement: When using broad designations such as “ABC Corporation” or “John Doe” in a negligence or personal injury complaint, plaintiffs must identify the unknown defendant with reasonable particularity to toll the statute of limitations.
2. Diligent Investigation: Plaintiffs are expected to use due diligence in identifying potential defendants within the statutory period. Filing an amended complaint years later without a reasonable explanation will not suffice.
3. Amendments Under CR 15(c): An amended complaint naming a new party only relates back if the new party had notice within the statutory period. Lack of notice bars the claim, even if the original complaint was timely filed.
4. Tolling Under RCW 4.16.170: Tolling the statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.170 applies when an action against one defendant is timely filed and served, but it does not extend to unidentified entities unless they are described with reasonable specificity.

Negligence and Personal Injury Claims: Contact Blanford Law for Assistance

If you or a loved one have been injured due to someone else’s negligence and are considering pursuing a personal injury claim in Washington State, it is essential to consult with experienced legal counsel. Navigating the complexities of Washington law, including statutes of limitations and the process for amending complaints, requires the guidance of a skilled attorney. The team at Blanford Law is dedicated to providing knowledgeable representation for clients in personal injury and negligence cases.

Blanford Law can help ensure that your case is handled properly, timelines are adhered to, and all responsible parties are correctly identified. If you have been injured in an accident, don’t wait—contact Blanford Law to schedule a consultation today.

Conclusion

The Bresina v. Ace Paving case highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in Washington personal injury and negligence cases when they do not promptly identify and serve the correct defendants. Proper investigation and adherence to procedural rules are crucial in ensuring that claims are not dismissed due to expired statutes of limitations.

By carefully following CR 15(c) and RCW 4.16.170, plaintiffs can avoid common pitfalls and maintain their ability to pursue negligence claims against all responsible parties.

Additional Resources

1. State v. Strong: Bail Bond Forfeiture & Equitable Relief
Analyzes how Washington courts may grant equitable relief in bail bond forfeiture situations under State v. Strong.

2. RCW 9.98.010: Untried Indictment Procedures
Explains how Washington addresses untried indictments and detainers when defendants are held on other charges.

3. Corporations in Small Claims Court
A breakdown of whether and how corporations can participate in Washington’s small claims court system.

4. Corporate Legal Representation in Washington
Covers the legal requirements and restrictions for businesses appearing in Washington courts through counsel.

5. Corporate Representation Rules in Washington Courts
Explores Washington rules on who can represent a company in court and under what circumstances.