Minton v. Whisenant, 80-304
| Decision Date | 21 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-304,80-304 |
| Parties | Danny E. MINTON v. Arnold WHISENANT, et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert B. Roden, Birmingham, for appellant.
James D. Pruett and Robert D. McWhorter, Jr., Gadsden, for appellees.
Danny Minton, an employee of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, was injured on the job on September 22, 1976 while operating a "precision wind-up" machine.
On September 22, 1977, he filed a complaint against Goodyear, Spadone Machine Company, Inc., and Portage Machine Company. The complaint contained three counts.
The first sought workmen's compensation from Goodyear. The second charged Spadone with wanton misconduct and negligence in (a) manufacturing the machine; (b) failing to provide a guard; (c) failing to provide safety devices; (d) failing to warn of the necessity for installing a safety device; (e) designing, manufacturing, or assembling the machine so that the safety device would not properly operate; and (f) selling the machine in an unsafe condition. The third count stated a claim against Portage for (a) manufacturing an imminently dangerous machine; (b) negligently or wantonly (i) manufacturing a machine without providing safety devices for its operator; (ii) failing to warn of the necessity for adding safety devices; and (iii) manufacturing or assembling the machine so that its safety device would not function properly; and (c) selling the machine in an unsafe condition.
No claim for relief was stated against any party described as a fictitious defendant or against any defendant whose name was alleged to be unknown. The caption of the complaint included twenty fictitious parties, variously described as being entities having to do with the manufacturing, distribution, assembly, or testing of the machine. Fictitious party No. 20 was described as:
No. 20, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who were the co-employees of the Plaintiff and who were negligent and whose negligence contributed to Plaintiff's injuries on the occasion made the basis of this suit....
The caption concludes:
Plaintiff avers that the identity of the fictitious party Defendants is otherwise unknown at this time or if the identity is known, the identity as a proper party Defendant is not known to the Plaintiff, but each's true name will be substituted by amendment when the aforesaid lack of knowledge is ascertained.
Grantham v. Denke, 359 So.2d 785 (Ala.1978), was decided by this Court on May 5, 1978. That decision allowed, for the first time since the 1975 amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act, suits against co-employees. On July 12, 1978, Minton filed a second lawsuit against several of his co-employees. Another was added as an additional defendant in the first suit, i. e., the case now on appeal. While this second suit was still pending, Minton filed an amendment substituting as "Fictitious party No. 20" the same individuals who were defendants in the second suit. Subsequently, several of the defendants were dismissed on their motions, and Whisenant was added as a party defendant on August 17, 1979, when he was substituted for "Fictitious party No. 1," which is defined in the caption as follows:
No. 1, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which manufactured the bias cutter being used on the occasion made the basis of this suit....
Four individual defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Defendants Arnold and Cunningham argued that Minton's claim against them was barred by the statute of limitations because he knew at the time of his injury in 1976 both their names and the facts upon which his claim against them was based. The trial court initially denied the motions of all individual defendants, and this Court denied their petitions for leave to appeal. On November 26, 1980, these four defendants/appellees filed a second motion for summary judgment which the court granted. This appeal followed. We affirm.
The question presented is whether the amendment substituting these four individuals for fictitious defendants described in the caption of the complaint relates back so as to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations. We hold that it does not because no claim or cause of action was ever stated against the individuals at any time before the statute of limitations ran. It can be argued that this interpretation of the Rules of Civil Procedure is a technical one, but it is not an unreasonable one. Although the rules do establish a system of notice pleading, they do not eliminate the necessity of alleging a theory of liability against a defendant before the limitation period runs, and merely listing a multitude of fictitious parties does not meet that requirement. It is not unreasonable to require the statement of a claim to be contained in the complaint itself.
Two cases already decided by this Court control this case. In Hinton v. Hobbs, 349 So.2d 28 (Ala.1977), we held that where the plaintiff knew the identity of a defendant at the time the suit was filed, that defendant could not be substituted for a fictitious defendant after the statute had run. There the Court said:
Rule 9(h), ARCP, is in the spirit of, and closely drawn from Tit. 7, § 136, Code, dealing with fictitious parties. Committee Comments, Rule 9, ARCP. It provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coker v. Amoco Oil Co.
...defendants to preserve claims which exist against parties who are unidentifiable at the outset of the action. See Minton v. Whisenant, 402 So.2d 971 (Ala.1981); Fowlkes v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 392 So.2d 803 (1980); Hinton v. Hobbs, 349 So.2d 28 (Ala.1977). Coker has not fraudulentl......
-
Columbia Engineering Intern., Ltd. v. Espey
...Birmingham Board of Education, 407 So.2d 129 (Ala.1981); Walden v. Mineral Equipment Company, 406 So.2d 385 (Ala.1981); Minton v. Whisenant, 402 So.2d 971 (Ala.1981); and Fowlkes v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 392 So.2d 803 (Ala.1980). These cases collectively stand for the propositio......
-
Marsh v. Wenzel
...only ignorance of the name of the party against whom a cause of action is stated." Id. at 960. For a similar holding, see Minton v. Whisenant, 402 So.2d 971 (Ala.1981) (knowledge of the defendant's identity, and ignorance of a cause of action, not sufficient to allow relation back under Rul......
-
Weeks v. Alabama Elec. Co-op., Inc.
...& McDonnell was the alter ego, servant, agent or employee of AEC. Therefore, Burns & McDonnell could not be "X." See, Minton v. Whisenant, 402 So.2d 971 (Ala.1981). The trial court was correct in granting summary judgment. The amendment adding Burns & McDonnell as a party does not relate ba......