Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp.

Brief Fact Summary.

Beeck and his wife sued Defendant, alleging that Defendant  manufactured a water slide that caused them injury. Defendant  sought to amend its answer to deny manufacture, which had been  admitted in the original answer. A separate trial was held on the issue of whether Defendant designed, manufactured, or sold the slide. After the jury returned a verdict for the Defendant, summary judgment was granted for Defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Leave to amend is to be freely granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a); the burden is on the party opposing the amendment to show prejudice.

Facts.

Plaintiff Jerry A. Beeck was severely injured while using a water slide at a social gathering sponsored by his employer. Beeck and his wife sued Defendant on theories of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that Defendant  manufactured the waterslide that caused them injury. Defendant admitted manufacture of the slide in its answer, but subsequently moved for leave to amend its answer to deny manufacture. Upon Defendant’s motion, made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), a separate trial was held on the issue of whether Defendant designed, manufactured, or sold the slide. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant, and summary judgment was subsequently granted for Defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issue.

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing Defendant leave to amend its answer?

Held.

No. Based on the record before it, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Defendant to amend its answer.

Discussion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides for leave to amend to be freely granted if justice requires. The burden is on the party opposing leave to amend to show prejudice. The trial court found that the possible prejudice to Plaintiffs was an insufficient basis for denying Defendant’s motion for leave to amend. The court also held that the Rule 42(b) separate trial on the issue of manufacture of the slide was not an abuse of discretion.