Otness v. United States

Citation. 23 F.R.D. 279 (D. Alaska Terr. 1959)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation23 F.R.D. 279 (D. Alaska Terr. 1959)

Brief Fact Summary.

After all testimony was given at trial for a negligence claim, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint under Rule 15(b)(2), adding a claim for willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A party cannot be granted leave to amend their complaint if the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

This rule, however, does not authorize such an amendment merely because evidence which is competent and material upon the issues created by the pleadings incidentally tends to prove another fact not within the issues in the case.

View Full Point of Law

Otness (Plaintiff) brought suit against the United States (Defendant) for negligence after he was injured by a submerged navigation structure owned by the Coast Guard. After all testimony was given at trial and the court was determining the case, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint under Rule 15(b)(2), adding a claim for willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

Issue.

Can a party be granted leave to amend their complaint if the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party?

Held.

No, the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied.

Discussion.

The Court determined that allowing the Plaintiff to amend his complaint would be prejudicial to the Defendant because the Defendant already argued in trial against the claims of negligence. The Defendant would not have a fair opportunity to defend against the new standard of liability. Additionally, the Court found the evidence presented by the Defendant’s negligence defense did not constitute consent under Rule 15(b)(2) to the issue of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.