ad damnum clause in Maryland

2009The Court of Appeals considered a post-verdict motion to amend an ad damnum clause in Falcinelli v. Cardascia, 339 Md. 414 , 663 A.2d 1256 (1995).

2009The Court of Appeals considered a post-verdict motion to amend an ad damnum clause in Falcinelli v. Cardascia, 339 Md. 414 , 663 A.2d 1256 (1995).

2009In the earliest decision in this Court, *278 Harris v. Jaffray, 3 H. & J. at 546 , counsel for the defendant cited, inter alia, Cheveley v. Morris, 2 W.Blk.Rep. 1300, 96 Eng.Rep. 762 (Exchq.Ch.1779), and Wray v. Lister, 2 Stra. 1110, 93 Eng.Rep. 1064 (K.B.1739).

2007In Harris v. *579 Jaffray, 3 H. & J. 543 (1811), a jury awarded the plaintiff a sum in excess of what he had sought in the ad damnum clause of his complaint.

2007In support, it cited its observation in Falcinelli supra, 339 Md. at 423 , 663 A.2d 1256 , based upon the language of Scher v. Altomare, supra, 278 Md. at 442 , 365 A.2d 41 , that a plaintiff may recover the lesser of the damages proved or the damages demanded in the ad damnum clause of the operative complaint.

2007In support, it cited its observation in Falcinelli supra, 339 Md. at 423 , 663 A.2d 1256 , based upon the language of Scher v. Altomare, supra, 278 Md. at 442 , 365 A.2d 41 , that a plaintiff may recover the lesser of the damages proved or the damages demanded in the ad damnum clause of the operative complaint.

2003As we have seen, although determining that § 10-104 did not apply because the petitioner’s treating chiropractor testified, the court opined: “Even if [§ ] 10-104 did apply[,] the court believes that Rule 2-341, which provides for ‘great liberality in the allowance of amendments,’ Goldstein v. Peninsula Bank, 41 Md.App. 224 , 396 A.2d 542 (1979)[,] would permit the court to grant the [petitioner’s] post[-]trial motion for amendment of the ad damnum clause.” 135 Md.App. at 208 , 761 A.2d at 1043 .

2003As we have seen, although determining that § 10-104 did not apply because the petitioner’s treating chiropractor testified, the court opined: “Even if [§ ] 10-104 did apply[,] the court believes that Rule 2-341, which provides for ‘great liberality in the allowance of amendments,’ Goldstein v. Peninsula Bank, 41 Md.App. 224 , 396 A.2d 542 (1979)[,] would permit the court to grant the [petitioner’s] post[-]trial motion for amendment of the ad damnum clause.” 135 Md.App. at 208 , 761 A.2d at 1043 .

1966It was pointed out in Jimmy’s Cab v. Isennock, 225 Md. 1 , 169 A. 2d 425 , that it is not an unusual practice in this state to allow the pleadings, including the declaration containing the ad damnum clause, *224 to be taken to the jury room.

1966It was pointed out in Jimmy’s Cab v. Isennock, 225 Md. 1 , 169 A. 2d 425 , that it is not an unusual practice in this state to allow the pleadings, including the declaration containing the ad damnum clause, *224 to be taken to the jury room.

2008Id.

2007Cf. Cole v. Gales, 47 Md.App. 506, 509 , 423 A.2d 972 (1981) (holding that default judgment establishes liability only and that, when, in the course of a contested trial on damages, plaintiff learns of an item of damage he did not know about previously, court had discretion to allow him to amend the ad damnum clause of his complaint to include the newly discovered amount).

2007Cf. Cole v. Gales, 47 Md.App. 506, 509 , 423 A.2d 972 (1981) (holding that default judgment establishes liability only and that, when, in the course of a contested trial on damages, plaintiff learns of an item of damage he did not know about previously, court had discretion to allow him to amend the ad damnum clause of his complaint to include the newly discovered amount).

2007Such was the state of Maryland law of pleading and damages when the Court of Appeals decided Falcinelli v. Cardascia, 339 Md. 414 , 663 A.2d 1256 (1995), and Scott v. Jenkins, 345 Md. 21 , 690 A.2d 1000 (1997).

2007Such was the state of Maryland law of pleading and damages when the Court of Appeals decided Falcinelli v. Cardascia, 339 Md. 414 , 663 A.2d 1256 (1995), and Scott v. Jenkins, 345 Md. 21 , 690 A.2d 1000 (1997).

2003In addition to explaining that, “[t]o allow a post-trial amendment of the ad damnum clause to conform to the verdict would *689 defeat this requirement,” id. at 206 , 761 A.2d at 1042 , the intermediate appellate court held “that, by proceeding pursuant to § 10-104, independent of the statutory limitation ... ,[the petitioner] is estopped from pursuing damages in excess of that allowed under § 4-401.” Id. at 211, 761 A.2d at 1044 .

2003In addition to explaining that, “[t]o allow a post-trial amendment of the ad damnum clause to conform to the verdict would *689 defeat this requirement,” id. at 206 , 761 A.2d at 1042 , the intermediate appellate court held “that, by proceeding pursuant to § 10-104, independent of the statutory limitation ... ,[the petitioner] is estopped from pursuing damages in excess of that allowed under § 4-401.” Id. at 211, 761 A.2d at 1044 .

1930Warren Bros. v. Kendrick, 113 Md. 603, 612, 613 (action on bond dissolving attachment); Booth v. Calahan, 97 Md. 317 ; Kendrick v. Warren, 110 Md. 47 ; DeBearn v. DeBearn, 119 Md. 429 ; Sugar Products Co. v. Kitzmiller, 137 Md. 652 ; De Bebian v. Gola, 64 Md. 266 ; Neptune Ins.

1930Warren Bros. v. Kendrick, 113 Md. 603, 612, 613 (action on bond dissolving attachment); Booth v. Calahan, 97 Md. 317 ; Kendrick v. Warren, 110 Md. 47 ; DeBearn v. DeBearn, 119 Md. 429 ; Sugar Products Co. v. Kitzmiller, 137 Md. 652 ; De Bebian v. Gola, 64 Md. 266 ; Neptune Ins.

1910The general rale, as stated in Doran v. Cohen, 147 Mass. 342 , is that “sureties upon a bond to dissolve an attachment are not discharged by an amendment of the declaration, unless its effect is to let in a new cause of action, and thus to impose' upon them a liability greater than that which they assume by signing the bond.” In the application of this rule to a case where the ad damnum clause had been increased by amendment it was said in Townsend National Bank v. Jones, 151 Mass. 454 : “Nor is the surety discharged by a mere change in the ad damnum named in the writ.

1910The general rale, as stated in Doran v. Cohen, 147 Mass. 342 , is that “sureties upon a bond to dissolve an attachment are not discharged by an amendment of the declaration, unless its effect is to let in a new cause of action, and thus to impose' upon them a liability greater than that which they assume by signing the bond.” In the application of this rule to a case where the ad damnum clause had been increased by amendment it was said in Townsend National Bank v. Jones, 151 Mass. 454 : “Nor is the surety discharged by a mere change in the ad damnum named in the writ.

1910The liability of the surety is for the penal sum in the bond, with interest * * * So long as no new cause of action has been been introduced, his rights lave not been affected * * If a different and additional cause of action had been introduced into the plaintiff’s writ, whether the ad damnum had been increased or not, the defendant would have ground of objection, unless it could be clearly shown that the plaintiff had recovered only on the original cause of action * * * Unless it is shown that the surety has been, or may have been, injured by the increase ■of the ad damnum, there is no reaso