Yazzzay wrote:Hey, sorry if this one has been asked before but super confused- 85% of Adaptibar users and I got it wrong:
On January 1, 2005, a woman met with a plastic surgeon for a face lift consultation. The plastic surgeon described the procedure and the woman agreed to have the surgery on a date exactly one week later. On December 25, 2007, unhappy with the results, the woman filed a single-count complaint against the plastic surgeon in federal court. The complaint asserts that the plastic surgeon failed to obtain informed consent. Applicable state law provides a three-year statute of limitations for tort claims. Three weeks after serving the complaint, the woman's attorneys amended the complaint to add a negligence claim on the theory that the plastic surgeon was intoxicated while he performed her surgery.
Can the woman amend her complaint?
A. Yes, because the negligence claim relates back to the date of the original complaint, which was filed timely, and the woman can amend the complaint as a matter of right.
B. No, because the negligence claim does not relate back to the original complaint.
C. Yes, because the plastic surgeon knew or should have known that the woman would have brought a negligence claim against him, but for a mistake.
D. No, because the three-year statute of limitations for tort claims expired on January 1, 2008, and the woman did not file the negligence claim before that date.
Correct answer was B and NOT A. How is it not from the same transaction/occurence and able to relate back?
I'm guessing the language in bold is key. A week separated the woman consenting to the surgery and the surgeon getting plastered and actually performing the surgery, so I guess that (in part) leads to the two events amounting to separate transactions/occurrences.