## Facts

- Jenoddin Kazi was stopped in traffic on State Highway 14 when a second vehicle struck his pickup; a third vehicle then struck the second vehicle, pushing it back into Kazi’s truck.
- The police report identified the third-vehicle driver as “Gary Walker” at a Route 2 address in Weiner, Arkansas.
- Kazi sued “Gary Walker” and served process at that address; the person served was Gary L. Walker (the father).
- Gary L. Walker answered that he was not the driver and asserted that his son, Gary D. Walker, who lived at the same address, was the driver.
- Gary L. Walker moved for summary judgment on the ground he was not the driver.
- Kazi moved to amend the complaint to substitute Gary D. Walker as defendant and asked that the amendment relate back to the original filing date.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Gary L. Walker and granted Kazi leave to amend with relation back.
- A notice of appeal was filed in the name “Gary Walker,” creating ambiguity whether the appellant was the father (Gary L.) or the son (Gary D.).

## Issues

1. Whether a party who prevailed by summary judgment has standing to appeal.
2. Whether an order permitting an amended complaint to substitute a defendant and relate back is a final, appealable order.

## Decision

- The appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- Gary L. Walker, as the prevailing party on summary judgment, had no standing to appeal.
- Even if the appeal were treated as brought by Gary D. Walker, the order allowing amendment and relation back was interlocutory and not final.

## Legal Principles

- A prevailing party generally cannot appeal because there is no adverse ruling causing legal injury.
- A litigant cannot appeal to assert another person’s rights; the father could not appeal “for” his son.
- A final, appealable order must terminate the action or conclude the parties’ rights; an order allowing amendment to substitute a defendant and relate back does not.
- Appellate courts must examine finality and jurisdiction on their own initiative and dismiss when finality is absent.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the appeal because the only clearly identified appellant had won in the trial court and thus lacked standing, and because the challenged order permitting substitution of a defendant with relation back did not end the case and was not immediately appealable.


Walker v. Kazi, 316 Ark. 616 (1994)