View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. Crompton & Knowles Corporation (Defendant) seeks to amend his answer to deny the allegations that it designed, manufactured and sold the machine that injured David (Plaintiff).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A motion to amend should be denied if the plaintiff would be prejudiced and the defendant was aware of this information prior to filing his answer.
An averment will be deemed admitted when the matter is obviously one as to which defendant has knowledge or information.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether the Defendant should be permitted to amend its answer to deny the allegations?
Held. No. Defendant’s Motion to Amend is denied. A court may deny a request to amend an answer if it bases such denial on a valid ground. Some likely reasons to deny a motion to amend are that the amendment would result in undue prejudice to the plaintiff or that plaintiff has been unduly delayed. In the instant case, Defendant knew the basic facts surrounding the manufacture and delivery of the machine prior to filing its answer to the complaint. The effect of this delay would be highly prejudicial to the Plaintiff since Plaintiff would now be barred by the statute of limitations from instituting this action against another party. To allow an amendment here would penalize the Plaintiff, who is without fault and leave him with no remedy.
Discussion. This portion of the case determines whether the Defendant should be permitted to amend his answer to deny Plaintiff’s allegations, whereas the first case determined whether Defendant’s denial based on lack of information constituted an admission if the Defendant was in control or had knowledge of applicable facts.