 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] McGhee v. Martin12/12/2003
On October 14, 1999, Willie McGhee lost his right arm and hand in an industrial accident that occurred while he was processing rubber through a "re-op mill" at the business premises of his employer, Uniroyal/B.F. Goodrich/Michelin North America ("Michelin"). In July 2001, after having conducted presuit discovery pursuant to Rule 27(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., in February 2000, McGhee sued the manufacturer of the "re-op mill," alleging violations of the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, and Ed Martin, Bruce Brackett, Russell Vaughn, Paul Cagle, and Wilton Crawford (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the co-employees"), alleging that they had willfully and intentionally removed a safety device from the mill that McGhee had been working with at the time of his accident. McGhee also sued 27 fictitiously named parties pursuant to Rule 9(h), Ala. R. Civ. P.
On February 11, 2002, the trial court entered a scheduling order. That order set the case for trial for the first civil jury week of 2003, set the case for final pretrial conference on December 9, 2002, and set cutoff dates for the designation of experts, the exchange of witness lists, the filing of summary-judgment motions, and discovery. The order also stated that " ll amendments including the adding of parties shall be filed within 90 days of this order." Thus, pursuant to the scheduling order, no new parties could be added after May 13, 2002.
McGhee began taking depositions of the co-employees in June 2002. Two of the co-employees, Martin and Vaughn, were deposed on September 10, 2002. At Martin's deposition, he was unable to provide the name of the head of maintenance at Michelin at the time of the accident. McGhee propounded interrogatories to Martin, requesting the name of the head of maintenance, on October 16, 2002; Martin supplied the name "John Guest" in response. On November 12, 2002, McGhee filed a "Motion to Substitute Fictitious Parties," in which he requested that he be allowed to substitute Guest and three additional co-employees -- Donald Williams, Curtis Coker, and Harold Chavis -- for fictitiously named party number one, who is described in the complaint as "the person or persons who were employees ... of [McGhee's] employer who had been delegated responsibility by their employer to provide [McGhee] with a safe place to work or a reasonably safe work environment." The co-employees filed a response in opposition to McGhee's motion, arguing that the deadline for adding new parties had passed six months before the filing of the motion to substitute; that McGhee had failed to demonstrate due diligence in determining the true identity of the fictitiously named parties as required by Rule 9(h); and that McGhee could not substitute four additional defendants for one fictitiously named party. After a hearing on February 21, 2003, the trial court denied McGhee's motion on February 25, 2003.
The co-employees filed a motion for a summary judgment on January 21, 2003; that motion was set for a hearing on February 21, 2003. In response to the summary-judgment motion, McGhee filed a request, pursuant to Rule 56(f), Ala. R. Civ. P., that the trial court continue the hearing on the summary-judgment motion and permit additional time for further discovery. The co-employees opposed McGhee's request. The trial court denied the continuance and, because McGhee had failed to produce any evidence indicating an issue of material fact on the liability of the co-employees, entered a summary judgment in favor of the co-employees on February 25. At the request of the co-employees, the trial court made that summary judgment final.
On March 10, 2003, McGhee filed a postjudgment motion requesting that the trial cou
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|