For the purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, any person, firm, or corporation may file a complaint stating his or her cause of action in the appropriate court of this state, whenever the identity of the tortfeasor is unknown.
The name of the unknown tortfeasor shall be designated by the pseudo-name John Doe or, if there is more than one (1) tortfeasor, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, etc.
Upon determining the identity of the tortfeasor, the complaint shall be amended by substituting the real name for the pseudo-name.
It shall be necessary for the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney to file with the complaint an affidavit that the identity of the tortfeasor is unknown before this section shall apply.
Although the mother amended her complaint to substitute a contractor for one of the John Doe defendants within the 90 days allotted by this section and claimed that the amended complaint was timely, the argument failed because the court would have to apply Arkansas' three-year statute of limitations, and it was Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations that governed the case. Hall v. Summit Contrs., Inc., 356 Ark. 609, 158 S.W.3d 185 (2004).
Circuit court erred in granting an estate's motion for summary judgment because, although the plaintiff was not aware of the defendant's death, she named the defendant's estate as a John Doe defendant, the statute of limitations was tolled where record demonstrated that the identity of the tortfeasor, the defendant's estate, was unknown to the plaintiff, and the requirements for relation back of an amendment were met.
Berryhill v. Synatzske, 2014 Ark. 169, 432 S.W.3d 637 (2014).
Failure to Name Party.
Patient was aware that the nurse could, and should, have been specifically named as a defendant from the outset of the case where the patient knew of the nurse's existence and his name was on the operative report prepared on the day of the surgery; the failure to name the nurse in the original complaint was not a mere mistake of identity, and this section only allows a complaint to be filed against a John Doe defendant when the plaintiff cannot identify the tortfeasor. Stephens v. Petrino, 350 Ark. 268, 86 S.W.3d 836 (2002).
Cited:
Harvill v. Community Methodist Hosp. Ass'n, 302 Ark. 39, 786 S.W.2d 577 (1990).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Berryhill v. Synatzske, 2014 Ark. 169 (Ark. 2014).
Berryhill v. Synatzske, 2014 Ark. 169 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 45דBerryhill responded that her complaint named Synatzske, as well as her estate, as a John Doe defendant pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-125 (Repl. 2005), in the event Synatzske died prior to filing the complaint.”
Stephens v. Petrino, 86 S.W.3d 836 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 5ד15, governing the relation back of amendments to pleadings, and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-125 (1987), the so-called “John Doe” statute.”
Hall v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 158 S.W.3d 185 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 3דFinally, Hall argues that her second amended complaint is not barred by the three-year statute of limitations, because she properly utilized Arkansas’ “John Doe statute,” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-125 (1987), to toll the statute of limitations as to HRH.”
Berryhill v. Synatzske, 2013 Ark. App. 483 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6ד” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-125 (a). Accordingly, I would hold that the statute applies and that it tolls the statute of limitations.”
Harvill v. Cmty. Methodist Hosp. Ass'n, 786 S.W.2d 577 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 2דFinally, the appellant also attempts to argue alternatively that, because she filed a John Doe pleading authorized under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-125 (1987), she should be able to substitute St.”
Scamardo v. Sparks Reg'l Med. Ctr., 289 S.W.3d 903 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 2דJaggers under the one-year savings statue — Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-125 (a)(l) (Repl. 2005), and several unnamed defendants, but failed to name Steadfast as a defendant.”
Jones v. Douglas, 2015 Ark. App. 488 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4דThe court found that appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Arkansas’ savings statute, Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-56-125, due to a failure to “complete service of process” on appellees within 120 days of the complaint being filed.”
Berryhill v. Synatzske, 2013 Ark. App. 483 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6ד” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-125 (a). Accordingly, I would hold that the statute applies and that it tolls the statute of limitations.”
Orr v. Calicott, 372 S.W.3d 843 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2דWe reject the doctors’ argument that the savings statute, Ark.Code Ann. § 16-56-125 (Repl.2005), cannot be used to save Orr’s action because it does not contain any tolling provisions.”
Smith-Dandridge v. Geanolous (W.D. Ark. 2020). · cites it 10ד” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-125 . To do so, “[t]he name of the unknown tortfeasor shall be designated by the pseudo-name John Doe or, if there is more than one (1) tortfeasor, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, etc.”
Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, Walter Johnson, David Nixon, & Fed. Ins. Co. v. Lee Davis, M.D., 2020 Ark. App. 562 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2ד” Along with the complaint, Davis’s counsel filed an affidavit intended to comply with Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-56-125(c) (Repl. 2005) (“It shall be necessary for the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney to file with the complaint an affidavit that the identity of the…”
Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, Walter Johnson, David Nixon, & Fed. Ins. Co. v. Lee Davis, M.D., 2020 Ark. App. 562 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). “” Along with the complaint, Davis’s counsel filed an affidavit intended to comply with Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-56-125(c) (Repl. 2005) (“It shall be necessary for the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney to file with the complaint an affidavit that the identity of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.