Ex parte Godfrey
Decision Date | 30 May 1963 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 707 |
Citation | 275 Ala. 668,158 So.2d 107 |
Parties | Ex parte Isaac GODFREY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rives, Peterson, Pettus & Conway, and Thos. Seay, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Cabaniss & Johnston, Leigh M. Clark and L. Murray Alley, Birmingham, for respondent.
This is an original petition for peremptory writ of mandamus filed in this Court by Isaac Godfrey against Honorable Ingram Beasley, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to command him to allow an amendment of the complaint in that certain cause styled: Isaac Godfrey, Plaintiff, v. Southern Railway Company, a Corporation, Defendant, now pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, at law.
The complaint as originally filed, on September 10, 1957, contained one count, Count 1, and is brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
On October 2, 1959, petitioner filed an amendment to the complaint consisting of two counts, A and B. The amendment was disallowed on the theory that it alleged matters which constituted a departure from the original complaint, both under the state law and the federal statute, and because it was offensive to the substantive law of the Federal Employers' Liability Act in that it was barred by the limitations of Title 45, Sec. 56, U.S.C.A.
The only real issue presented by the petition and subsequent pleadings is whether respondent properly disallowed the amendment containing Counts A and B.
This Court issued a rule nisi and the respondent, Honorable Ingram Beasley, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, has filed a demurrer to the petition and also an answer. In his answer, the respondent attached to and made a part thereof, certain answers of the plaintiff to interrogatories propounded to him by defendant.
Count 1 of the complaint reads as follows:
'Plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of, to wit, Fifteen Thousand and No/100 ($15,000.00) Dollars, as damages, for that heretofore, on to wit, the 11th day of September, 1956, the defendant was engaged in the operation of a railroad in Interstate Commerce and plaintiff was employed by such carrier in such commerce and while engaged in and about his duties as such employee on the premises of defendant at its Norris Yards, at or near Irondale, in Jefferson County, Alabama, the plaintiff stepped in some acid which had been spilled on the floor by some servant, agent, or employee of defendant whose name is to plaintiff unknown, and as a direct and proximate result thereof the plaintiff suffered acid burns on his feet and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish; was caused to lose a large amount of time and money in and about trying to treat, cure and heal his said injuries; suffered fear of losing his life, was caused to lose his right leg, which had to be amputated, and plaintiff was rendered permanently less able to earn a living.
'And plaintiff avers that all of his said damages and injuries were suffered as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the officers, agents or employees of defendant in and about allowing said acid to be and remain on said floor, or in failing to provide a reasonably safe place for plaintiff to work, hence this suit.'
Counts A and B, the proposed amendment, read as follows:
'COUNT A:
'COUNT B:
'For COUNT 'B' of plaintiff's complaint, the plaintiff adopts the allegations of COUNT 'A' of his complaint down to and including the allegation 'plaintiff's power and capacity to work and earn money was permanently impaired;' and for this COUNT 'B' plaintiff adds the following additional allegations, viz:
It is to be noted that the original complaint was filed in this cause on September 10, 1957, and alleges that the injuries sued for occurred on the 11th day of September, 1956, and that the amendment was filed on October 2, 1959, and amended on December 2, 1959, more than three years after the injuries are alleged to have occurred in the original complaint.
While our statute on amendments, Sec. 239, Title 7, Code 1940, is broad and liberal, it is the creation of the lawmaking power. It provides that 'The court must, whilst the cause is in progress, * * * permit the amendment of the complaint * * * by striking out or adding new counts or statements of the cause of action, * * *' etc.; the limitation placed upon the right of the amendment being, that by it there shall not be wrought a different cause of action or an entire change of parties.
Sec. 220, Title 7, Code 1940, provides that all actions ex delicto may be joined in the same suit. But there is nothing in that section relative to amendments after the suit is filed. Amendments are controlled entirely by Sec. 239, supra.
Petitioner argues that since all the counts, both original and amendatory, allege the ultimate loss of plaintiff's right leg that both complaints allege the same injury. But a careful analysis proves otherwise.
Count 1 alleges that plaintiff's right foot was burned when he stepped in acid, naming the specific time, place and circumstances. If the plaintiff stepped in the acid through the breach of some duty by defendant a cause of action at that instance arose in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant.
A perusal of the amendatory counts demonstrates that they are based on entirely other breaches of duty at different times and places. The ultimate loss of plaintiff's leg is unquestionably an element of his damages, just as are medical expenses and loss of wages, but they are not injuries giving rise to the cause of action.
The plaintiff's original complaint states a cause of action which would entitle plaintiff to recover without proof of the loss of the leg as an element of damage. In the amendatory counts, the injury alleged is the contracting of cancer. The invasion of plaintiff's person is alleged to be the exposure and contact with the alleged irritants, which, according to the complaint, was such that 'the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richards v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc.
...not introduce a new cause of action, “and therefore it related back to the beginning of the action” (quoted in Ex parte Godfrey,275 Ala. 668, 674, 158 So.2d 107, 113 (1963))); New York Central & Hudson River R.R. v. Kinney,260 U.S. 340, 346, 43 S.Ct. 122, 67 L.Ed. 294 (1922)(holding that “w......
-
Sansing v. Ellis, s. 6
... ... Lipscomb's lack of authority (see: Ex parte Green, 221 Ala. 298, 300, 129 So. 72). It is our view, however, that the grounds of the objections and motions are in the nature of conclusions and ... ...
-
3M Co., Inc. v. Dunn
...Code 1940) relative to amendments after the suit is filed. Amendments are controlled entirely by section 239.' See also Ex parte Godfrey, 275 Ala. 668, 158 So.2d 107. Appellee argues that the trial court properly struck Count Three because it added by amendment a new cause of action to the ......
-
Nason v. Jones
...has been stated and followed in cases involving the statute of limitations.--United States Steel Corp. v. McGehee, supra; Ex parte Godfrey, 275 Ala. 668, 158 So.2d 107. We are clear to the conclusion that in the instant case the amendments add a new cause of action insofar as they seek to r......