Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Judges McGEE and STEELMAN concur. 1 . Although the notice of appeal that Defendants filed made reference to both of the orders mentioned in the text of this opinion, Defendants have not, as Plaintiff correctly notes, made any argument challenging the denial of their motion for a new trial. As such, the validity of the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial is not properly before us. 2 . The facts set forth in the text of this opinion are derived from an examination of the allegations set out in Defendants’ amended counterclaim as compared to the allegations contained in their original pleading. See Hughes v. Anchor Enters., Inc., 245 N.C. 131, 135, 96 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1956) (<HOLDING>). 3 . As a result of their failure to advance
holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations holding original complaint was admission where it alleged an accident occurred on a different date than the amended complaint holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint holding that while the excerpt from the original complaint was competent as evidence as a pleading it was superseded by the amended complaint