Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘n’ Dive Corp

    Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs sued Defendant for personal injuries sustained from an accident involving a slide allegedly manufactured by Plaintiff. Defendant admitted in its answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint that it manufactured the slide based on the determination by three insurance companies that Defendant had manufactured the slide. After the statute of limitations had run, Defendant discovered that it had not manufactured the slide and sought leave to amend its answer, which the District Court granted.

    Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party can amend its pleading only with leave of court or consent of the other party. Leave shall be freely given. Leave to amend should only be denied if the party opposing the amendment can show bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice.

    Facts. Kimberly Village Homeowner Association ordered an Aquaslide product from Bolt, who forwarded the order to Sentry Pool and Chemical Supply Co., who forwarded the order to Purity Swimming Pool Supply. A slide was delivered from Purity to Kimberly, and was installed by Kimberly employees. An accident happened when Beeck, the plaintiff, was using the slide in question and suffered severe injuries. Plaintiff was at a social gathering sponsored by Harker, his employer. Kimberly’s insurer notified Aquaslide ‘n’ Dive Corp., Defendant, that the slide was involved with the accident. Defendant’s insurer investigated the incident and determined that the slide was manufactured by Defendant. In addition, Harker and Kimberly’s insurers also determined the slide was manufactured by Defendant. Subsequently, Beeck and his wife, Plaintiffs, sued Defendant for personal injuries suffered in the slide accident. Based on the insurers’ determinations that Defendant manufactured the slide, Defendant admitted it manufactured the slide in its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Six and a half months after the statute of limitations ran on Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant’s president determined that the slide was not manufactured by Defendant. Defendant sought leave to amend its answer and deny manufacturing the slide. The District Court granted such leave and Plaintiffs’ appealed.

    Issue. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by granting Defendant leave to amend its complaint and deny ownership of the slide?

    Held. No. Affirmed. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move to amend the pleadings at any time. As stated in Rule 15(a), leave to amend shall be “freely given as justice so requires.” The party opposing the motion to amend must demonstrate prejudice from such amendment. The trial court determined that there was no evidence of “bad faith, prejudice or undue delay.” Defendant’s reliance on three insurance companies’ determinations that Defendant manufactured the slide demonstrates that the admission was made in good faith. Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced to the extent that Defendant will prevail at trial and Plaintiffs will not be allowed to proceed against other parties. The relevant issue for the Court’s consideration is to contest the factual issue of who manufactured the slide. The insurer investigating manufacture of the slide was not lacking in diligence so as to preclude Defendant from litigating the issue.

    Discussion. This case demonstrates the broad federal policy of Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting leave to amend the pleadings. Note that the burden is on the party opposing the amendment to show prejudice or any misconduct by the moving party. In addition, the trial court has broad discretion when granting leave to amend.


    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following