DOBY Et Al. v. BIVINS, 341 Ga. App. 757

Background

On Jan. 18, 2014 Doby and her children were struck by a vehicle whose driver fled; Doby recorded the license plate and the police report listed the vehicle as registered to Treneika Bivins.
Doby sued on May 5, 2015, mistakenly naming Lillian Bivins (Treneika’s mother) as defendant, alleging Lillian must have permitted use of the car (invoking family purpose theory) but not alleging either Bivins woman was the driver.
Lillian moved for dismissal or summary judgment, contending she neither owned nor drove the vehicle and the police report identified Treneika as the owner; Doby did not oppose that motion.
Doby then moved to add Treneika as a party, asserting ambiguity in ownership/insurance records and seeking to join the apparent proper defendant.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Lillian and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding Doby failed to establish prerequisites for the family purpose doctrine and deeming the motion to add Treneika moot.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Lillian but reversed the finding that the motion to add Treneika was moot, directing the trial court to reconsider the motion under the proper procedural standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of Lillian warranted without first adding Treneika	Doby: she sued wrong party by mistake and asked to add Treneika; court should allow adding proper defendant instead of dismissing case with prejudice	Lillian: summary judgment appropriate against her; adding Treneika would be moot because claims against named defendant lack evidentiary support	Court: affirmed summary judgment for Lillian but held motion to add Treneika was not moot and must be reconsidered under OCGA § 9-11-21 discretionarily
Proper procedural standard for adding a party	Doby: sought to add proper party under leave to amend / party-adding rules	Lillian/trial court: treated motion under indispensable-party standard (OCGA § 9-11-14) and found not indispensable or moot	Court: motion to add should be analyzed under OCGA § 9-11-21 (misjoinder/nonjoinder); trial court must consider prejudice and excuse for delay when ruling
Whether family purpose doctrine applied to impose vicarious liability on Lillian	Doby: alleged Lillian must have permitted use of vehicle, potentially satisfying family purpose doctrine	Lillian: no evidence she owned, controlled, or authorized use of the vehicle; police report lists Treneika as owner	Court: Doby failed to meet the four preconditions for the family purpose doctrine as to Lillian; summary judgment for Lillian affirmed
Whether plaintiff’s attempt to add Treneika is barred by statute of limitations or moot	Doby: adding Treneika should be allowed and may relate back; not necessarily time-barred	Lillian: adding a new party is unnecessary given ruling and would be moot	Court: adding/changing parties may be allowed (relation back doctrine applies); trial court must exercise discretion under § 9-11-21 and evaluate prejudice and justification for delay

Key Cases Cited

Ansley v. Raczka–Long, 293 Ga. 138 (discusses summary judgment standard and construing evidence for nonmoving party)
Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243 (summary judgment review principles)
Ekokotu v. Pizza Hut, 205 Ga. App. 534 (plaintiff’s attempt to add parties was moot where claims against named defendant lacked evidentiary support)
Benedek v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 332 Ga. App. 573 (party-adding under OCGA § 9-11-21 and § 9-11-15 read together; courts consider prejudice and excuse for delay)
Marwede v. EQR/Lincoln Ltd. Partnership, 284 Ga. App. 404 (when plaintiff sues wrong party, use OCGA § 9-11-21 to drop/add parties)
Sloan v. Southern Floridabanc Fed. S & L Assn., 197 Ga. App. 601 (plaintiff has election to choose which joint tortfeasors to sue)
Horne v. Carswell, 167 Ga. App. 229 (amendments adding parties may relate back even if separate action would be time-barred)
Dashtpeyma v. Wade, 285 Ga. App. 361 (sets out two-part test and four preconditions for family purpose doctrine)