Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp case brief
U.S. court of appeals, 1977. Eighth circuit.
Posture: Case is an appeal from trial court’s exercise of discretion on procedural matters. Trial ct entered summary judgment for defendant. Was it wrong for trial judge to allow Aquaslide to amend their response that they manufactured slide to that they did not manufacture slide after statute of limitations ran? Appeals decided there was no abuse
Facts: Beeck was severely injured while using a water slide. They sued Aquaslide, a Texas Corp, alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty against them as a manufacturer. Aquaslide initially admitted to making slide but then moved to amend its answer to deny manufacture, plaintiff resisted but district ct granted leave to amend. A separate trial was made to determine if they made slide, plaintiff resisted but issue went to jury who went for defendant.
The owner visited the site of accident 6 and a half months after statute of limitations expired and decided it was not their product.
Reasoning: In Hanson, the burden is on the party opposing the amendment to show prejudice. Trial judge can decide to allow grant or denial of motion to amend pleadings and only reviewable if it was an abuse of discretion. Ct of appeals thought that judge did it correct to inquire if there was any bad faith, prejudice, and undue delay which overbalanced mandate of Rule 15(a) which allowed amendments. They decided that none of this was present because Aquaslide did not do anything with the goal to dismiss case or to screw plaintiff over.