Jones v. Resorcon, Inc.
Decision Date | 21 August 1992 |
Citation | 604 So.2d 370 |
Parties | Jerald JONES v. RESORCON, INC. 1910853. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William Dowsing Davis III of Davis & Goldberg, Birmingham, for appellant.
Don G. DeCoudres, Birmingham, for appellee.
Jerald Jones was injured at his place of employment; he brought an action against parties alleged to have manufactured a blower fan that caused his injury. After the statutory period of limitations had run (see Ala.Code 1975, § 6-2-38(l )), Jones substituted Resorcon, Inc., for a fictitiously named party. The trial court entered a summary judgment for Resorcon, based on the statute of limitations. The issue is whether the substitution should be allowed to relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint under Rule 15(c), Ala.R.Civ.P.; specifically, whether Jones exercised due diligence in attempting to learn the true identity of the manufacturer.
Jones was injured on July 1, 1988, while an employee at USX Corporation's plant. He stepped through a plastic grating on a blower fan, fell a considerable distance, and sustained multiple injuries. On May 21, 1990, Jones brought an action against Rust Engineering, Inc., 1 and Baltimore Aircoil Company, Inc., alleging that they had either designed, manufactured, sold, or distributed the blower fan at the USX plant. Jones also listed 13 fictitiously named defendants, who represented the unknown manufacturers, distributors, insurers, and inspectors of the fan.
On July 3, 1990 (two days after the period of limitations had run), Baltimore Aircoil answered, stating that it was not the manufacturer of the fan described in the complaint. Baltimore Aircoil apparently filed a motion for a summary judgment on December 17, 1990, but that motion is not in the record before us. According to a brief later filed by another party, Baltimore Aircoil's motion for summary judgment stated that the fan was manufactured by a competitor of Baltimore Aircoil. That later-filed brief also stated: "According to the affidavit submitted along with the Motion for Summary Judgment by Baltimore Aircoil, there was an identification plate on the cooling tower itself identifying the manufacturer." Jones does not dispute these descriptions of Baltimore Aircoil's motion for summary judgment.
It appears that, some time before February 28, 1991, Jones personally went to the plant to discover the true manufacturer of the fan, read the name on the identification plate, and mistakenly thought the name "Resorcon, Inc." was "Resources, Inc." On February 28, 1991, Jones moved to add "Resources, Inc.," as a defendant, and the trial court granted that motion on April 2, 1991. The case action summary sheet reflects that, on June 5, 1991, a summons and a complaint were mailed, addressed to "Resources, Inc.," by certified mail. Those documents are not in the record, so we cannot tell when they were received. On July 15, 1991, a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment was filed on behalf of "the defendant styled as 'RESOURCES, INC.,' " stating in part:
The motion argued that the amendment adding "Resources, Inc.," as a defendant did not relate back under Rule 15(c) and therefore was barred by the statute of limitations. This July 15 motion was supported by the above-referenced brief.
On August 8, 1991, Jones filed a motion to substitute Resorcon, Inc., for certain fictitiously named defendants, stating that "It has been determined that the correct defendant is Resorcon, Inc." On the same day, Jones filed a brief in opposition to the motion filed on behalf of "Resources, Inc.," supported by the following affidavit by Jones's attorney:
The court granted the motion to substitute on August 22, 1991, but Jones did not actually file an amended complaint adding Resorcon as a defendant until September 17, 1991. Meanwhile, on August 27, 1991, the trial court entered a summary judgment for Baltimore Aircoil.
On September 30, 1991, Resorcon, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Jones had not exercised due diligence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp.
...means to have the evidence produced. This may include, if necessary, an attempt to obtain a court- inspection. See Jones v. Resorcon, 604 So.2d 370, 373 (Ala.1992). Finally, the jury, if it is the trier of fact, must be instructed that it is not required to draw the inference that the destr......
-
Estate of West v. DeFrancisco
...that he was ignorant of the true identity of the defendant and that he used due diligence in attempting to discover it.Jones v. Resorcon, Inc., 604 So. 2d 370, 372-73 (citations omitted); see also Saxton, 254 F.3d at 965 (quoting Jones). "Thus, under Alabama law, an amendment substituting a......
-
Mann v. Darden
...by fictitiously naming defendants for which actual parties can later be substituted." Saxton, 254 F.3d at 965 (quoting Jones v. Resorcon, 604 So.2d 370, 372 (Ala.1992)). As stated by Saxton, a plaintiff can avoid the bar of the statute of limitations if: (1) the original complaint adequatel......
-
Starleper v. Hamilton
... ... Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 551 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); Singer by Cohen v ... Jones, 173 Wis.2d 191, 496 N.W.2d 156 (1992); Rollins v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 912 F.2d 911 (7th ... 604 So.2d at 370. Quoting from an earlier Alabama case (American Family Care, Inc. v. Irwin, 571 So.2d 1053, 1058 (Ala.1990)), which, in turn, relied on a number of well-accepted ... ...