Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co, 378
Citation | 58 S.Ct. 507,82 L.Ed. 745,303 U.S. 197 |
Decision Date | 14 February 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 378,378 |
Parties | MATY v. GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Thomas F. Gain and Charles L. Guerin, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. Louis Rudner, of Trenton, N.J., for respondent.
Petitioner (plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging that he was injured while employed in the silicate department of respondent's (defendant's) chemical plant. Later, and more than two years after the date of his injuries, he amended his complaint. The only effect of the amend- ment was to broaden the description of the place of employment where the injuries were sustained so as to include the phosphate department located in the same plant but in a different building 500 feet removed from the silicate department.
The sole question is: Did the New Jersey statute of limitations of two years bar the amendment because it set out a new cause of action?
The cause, originally brought in the New Jersey state court, was removed, because of diversity of citizenship, to the District Court of New Jersey, where a verdict for plaintiff was set aside and judgment entered for defendant. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the amendment to the complaint set out a new cause of action and was barred by the New Jersey statute of limitations.1
The pertinent part of the New Jersey statute of limitations reads:2 'All actions hereafter accruing for injuries to persons caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of any * * * corporation or corporations within this state, shall be commenced and instituted within two years next after the cause of such action shall have accrued and not after.'
The original complaint alleged:
'1. The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant in the month of November, 1933, and for some time prior thereto at defendant's plant in Grasselli, County of Union and State of New Jersey.
The complaint further alleged that plaintiff was injured while so employed by inhaling gases or injurious substances proximately caused by respondent's failure to protect plaintiff from unnecessary dangers and to provide plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to work.
The amendment—added more than two years after the injuries were sustained—caused paragraph 2 of the complaint to read as follows: (New matter represented by italics.)
This amendment did not change plaintiff's cause of action. The original action was brought for injuries sustained by inhaling harmful substances while the plaintiff was in the defendant's employ previous to and including November, 1933. The essentials of this cause of action were employment; injury by or from harmful gases or substances while engaged in the employment; and proof that the injuries resulted from the negligent failure of defendant to protect plaintiff from unnecessary dangers and to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work. The responsibility of respondent was the same whether the harmful gases or substances were inhaled in the silicate department, the phosphate department, the dorr department, or any other department where plaintiff was performing his duties under his employment. It is not reasonably possible to say that petitioner's right of recovery under the original complaint and under the amended complaint were two separate and distinct causes of action.
Petitioner can have only one recovery for the one single injury alleged as a result of a breach of one continuing duty under one continuous employment.
The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals very...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Sylvania Indust. Corp.
...but its importance consists in its effectiveness * * * to accomplish the end of a just judgment." Maty v. Grasselli Co., 303 U.S. 197, 200, 201, 58 S.Ct. 507, 509, 82 L.Ed. 745. 17 My colleagues seem to say that, since patent-abuse is so important that a court must consider it even if not p......
-
Sellers v. Regents of University of California
...and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 58 S.Ct. 507, 82 L.Ed. 745." Furthermore, in considering whether injunctive relief should be granted, a federal district court should cons......
-
York v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...F.2d 861, 863: New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340, 346, 43 S.Ct. 122, 67 L.Ed. 294; Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197, 200, 201, 58 S.Ct. 507, 82 L.Ed. 745; United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 68, 69, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L.Ed. But, for the reason......
-
Michelsen v. Penney
...back under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 15(c), and the earlier law it codifies, therefore followed. Maty v. Grasselli Chem. Co., 303 U.S. 197, 58 S.Ct. 507, 82 L.Ed. 745; United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L.Ed. 619; Glint Factors v. Schnapp, 2 ......
-
Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (April 2014)
...suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted patent. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barrier......
-
Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (July 2014)
...suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted patent. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barrier......
-
Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied (July 2014)
...suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted patent. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barrier......
-
Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (March 2015)
...suit is not required to specifically include each element of the claims of the asserted patent. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barrier......