Acing Civil Procedure, 4th (Acing Series) by Adam Spencer

Author:Adam Spencer [Spencer, Adam]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781628100419
Publisher: West Academic
Published: 2014-05-18T18:30:00+00:00

ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEMS

Now, here are two problems that will enable us to see how this checklist can be used to resolve pleadings questions. They incorporate issues pertaining to the adequacy of denials, the propriety of amendments, the relation back rules, Rule 11 sanctions, the pleading of damages, and the entitlement to relief granted by a verdict:

PROBLEM 6.1

On December 12, 2003, Johnson, a Florida citizen, brought an action against International Parcel Service (IPS), a Delaware corporation based in Georgia, in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. In paragraph 4 of his complaint, Johnson alleged, “On February 26, 2001 Marion, an IPS employee acting within the scope of employment, negligently drove a vehicle that was owned, operated, and controlled by IPS in such a manner that caused it to collide with plaintiff’s vehicle, causing serious injuries to the plaintiff’s head, neck, and back.” Paragraph 5 of the complaint sought “$750,000 in compensatory damages.” Assume Florida has a three-year statute of limitations period for bringing negligence claims.

IPS responded to the complaint with an answer. In its answer, IPS responded to paragraph 4 of the complaint as follows: “IPS denies the allegations made in paragraph 4.” Counsel for IPS, after reviewing the complaint had asked IPS officials about the allegations made in this paragraph and they had told him that although Marion was one of their employees, she was not driving the vehicle at the time. The vehicle in question was actually being driven by an employee of Fleet Services, the company that 112

maintains and services IPS’s fleet of vehicles. On the basis of this conversation, IPS’s counsel submitted the answer containing the denial quoted above.

At trial, which commenced on March 1, 2004, after the close of Johnson’s case, IPS called a company official as a witness. The official explained that the vehicle involved in the accident was indeed owned by IPS but was being driven by an employee of Fleet Services, not the IPS employee Marion, at the time of the accident.

Johnson’s counsel immediately objected to this testimony, arguing that it is contrary to IPS’s general denial to paragraph 4 in its answer. IPS’s counsel then asked the court for permission to amend the answer to conform to the evidence. Johnson’s counsel objected to the amendment. Should the court permit IPS to amend its complaint? If Johnson wishes to amend his complaint at this point to add Fleet Services as a defendant, will that amendment be permitted to relate back? Are any Rule 11 sanctions appropriate here?

Analysis

IPS initially denied that it owned the vehicle involved in the accident but now wishes to amend its pleading to admit that fact but deny the rest of the allegations of paragraph 4. The initial general denial consisted simply of a blanket denial of everything alleged in paragraph 4, without specifically meeting each of the individual allegations made in the paragraph. In the face of a general denial, the next question is whether any part of the allegations generally denied were manifestly true or were known to be true by IPS at the time of the denial.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.