## Facts

- A family lived in an apartment in Chelsea, Massachusetts beginning in 1979; a child under six was diagnosed with lead poisoning on June 4, 1981 after exposure to lead-based paint in the apartment.
- The child was hospitalized for chelation therapy, contracted pneumonia while hospitalized, and died.
- The child’s estate and family sued in Superior Court asserting wrongful death and related claims against current and former property owners and against a deleading worker hired by the owners.
- The plaintiffs settled with the property-owner defendants; the deleading worker was not properly served and was erroneously included in a judgment, and he later died.
- About six years after the cause of action accrued, and after the limitations period had run, the plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to drop the settling defendants and to add five lead-paint manufacturers and a trade association as new defendants on product-based theories.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge abused discretion under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 15 by denying leave to amend to add entirely new defendants and theories approximately six years after accrual and after the statute of limitations had expired, based on prejudice from delay and the loss of key evidence.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the denial of leave to amend and denied the requested relief from the interlocutory ruling.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in concluding that the delay, the expired limitations period, the addition of new parties and theories, and the death of a key witness would substantially prejudice the proposed defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Leave to amend under Mass. R. Civ. P. 15 should be “freely given when justice so requires,” but it is not automatic; the trial judge may deny leave for good reasons.
- Undue delay and undue prejudice to the opposing party or proposed new parties are recognized grounds to deny amendment.
- Adding new defendants and materially different liability theories after substantial delay, particularly after limitations has run, may support a finding of prejudice where the passage of time impairs investigation and defense (including identifying responsible actors and reconstructing conditions).
- On appeal, denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion; affirmance is appropriate when the judge’s prejudice and delay findings are reasonable on the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the refusal to allow a late amendment that would have brought new manufacturer defendants and new theories into a lead-poisoning wrongful-death case long after accrual, concluding that the combination of extensive delay, expired limitations, evidentiary staleness, and the death of a central witness justified denial under Rule 15.


Christopher v. Duffy, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 780 (1990)