Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp. - 67 F.R.D. 411 (S.D. Iowa 1975)

Rule:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides in part that a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court; leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Recognizing that the entire spirit of the rules is to the effect that controversies shall be decided on the merits, the courts are not hesitant to allow amendments for the purpose of presenting the real issues of the case where the moving party has not been guilty of bad faith and is not acting for the purpose of delay, the opposing party will not be unduly prejudiced, and the trial of the issues will not be unduly delayed. Guided by the above-mentioned factors, the decision of whether to permit or deny the amendment lies within the discretion of the trial court. Two inquiries are essential to a proper exercise of that discretion: (1) Has the defendant acted in bad faith; (2) Will the plaintiffs be unduly prejudiced if the amendment is allowed. An outline of the facts is essential to a consideration of both the issues of bad faith and prejudice.

Facts:

Plaintiffs Jerry Beeck and his wife, Judy, instituted a complaint against defendant Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corporation, an entity which was designing, manufacturing and selling various slides for recreational use around swimming pools. The complaint alleged that Jerry Beeck suffered personal injuries while using an Aquaslide manufactured by the defendant which had been installed at a swimming pool in Davenport, Iowa. In its answer, defendant admitted that it manufactured the “Aquaslide” which was sold to the Kimberly Village Home Owners Association in Davenport, Iowa, and involved in Jerry Beeck’s accident. Subsequently, defendant sought leave to amend its answer, asserting that it discovered that the slide in question was not one of its own manufacture, sale, or distribution. Plaintiffs have resisted the application most strenuously, arguing that the two-year personal injury limitations period of § 614.1(2) of the Iowa Code has run, and hence that permitting the amendment will fatally prejudice their lawsuit.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was it proper to grant defendant’s application for leave to amend its answer?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court granted the manufacturer leave to amend, citing the provision of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. The court found that the manufacturer had not acted in bad faith because its admissions were made after investigators for three different insurance companies had determined that the product, which bore no identifying marks, was the manufacturer's. Concluding that the origin of the product was a factual question for a jury and that the manufacturer was not to blame for the alleged misidentification, the court held that the manufacturer should be permitted to contest the issue at trial.