Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp. – Case Brief
Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp., 562 F.2d 537 (8th Cir. 1977).
Facts: Beeck (P) sustained severe injuries while riding a water slide at a company outing. Beeck’s complaint named Aquaslide (D) as the manufacturer and sought to recover damages. After three insurance companies investigated the matter Aquaslide admitted that it was the manufacturer, but several months later denied having manufactured the slide after a visit to the site by Aquaslide’s president.
The trial court granted defendant corporation’s motion to amend its answer to deny having manufactured the slide and to have that issue resolved in a separate trial. The jury in the separate trial found in favor of D, and the first court granted summary judgment in favor of D. P appealed.
Issue: May a defendant amend its answer to deny a fact which it had previously admitted?
Holding and Rule: Yes. A defendant may amend its answer to deny a fact which it had previously admitted.
The trial court judge’s decision to permit D to amend its pleading and to bifurcate the trial was reviewed under the standard of abuse of discretion.
On appeal the court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in allowing the amendment. The court also ruled that the grant of a separate trial was within the trial court judge’s discretion because the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries would have been prejudicial to the defendant’s claim of non-manufacture.
The party opposing an amendment to a pleading must show undue prejudice. The court rejected P’s contention that moving to amend after the statute of limitations had run on P’s claim demonstrated bad faith. P had relied on the conclusions of three insurance companies and did not deny having manufactured the slide until D’s president visited the site.
Notes: FRCP 15(a)(2): Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend
its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
See also: Diniero v. United States Lines