 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Falada v. Trinity Industries2/27/2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Alan L. Pearson, Judge.
Plaintiff in wrongful death case appeals from summary judgment entered for defendant. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
James Falada was killed when an anhydrous ammonia tank ruptured. The executor of his estate sued Trinity Industries, Inc., manufacturer of the tank, alleging it was "defective in design and manufacture, was unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner . . . ." Trinity moved to dismiss on service-of-notice grounds and also moved for summary judgment, based on its claim the tank was damaged in a prior accident and that its construction was "state of the art" when manufactured. The court denied the motion to dismiss but granted the summary judgment motion on the state-of-the-art defense. We reverse and remand.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.
Falada was driving a truck pulling the anhydrous ammonia tank mounted on wheels so that it was "trailerized." The truck and trailer rolled over, rupturing the tank. The rupture allowed ammonia to escape, and Falada died of ammonia inhalation. His wife, the executor of his estate, claims the tank was defectively manufactured.
Trinity moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff did not serve an original notice within the time required by our rule, but the court denied the motion. Trinity later moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) the tank had been in a prior accident that weakened its structure, and (2) the tank was manufactured in compliance with the state of the art as it was in 1971, when the tank was manufactured.
The plaintiff resisted the summary judgment motion with affidavits and engineers' reports. One expert stated the rupture was likely caused by defective welding in the manufacturing process. Another expert said the rupture was not caused by a prior accident, as claimed by Trinity.
II. The Service-of-Notice Issue.
Trinity contends the district court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss this case for failure to serve a timely original notice. Under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 49(f),
f service of the original notice is not made upon the defendant, respondent, or other party to be served within 90 days after filing the petition, the court, upon motion or its own initiative after notice to the party filing the petition, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, respondent, or other party to be served or direct an alternate time or manner of service. If the party filing the papers shows good cause for the failure of service, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
The petition was filed on April 10, 1998. On July 8, the plaintiff served an original notice, but it was served on the wrong party. When notice was served on the correct party, the ninety days had passed, and Trinity moved to dismiss. The plaintiff's attorney resisted with an affidavit explaining that in May 1998 he received information from the Iowa Secretary of State's office that the registered agent for Trinity Industries, Inc. was a Lori Lake in Roland, Iowa. He served Lori Lake on behalf of Trinity. This, however, was the wrong Trinity. The district court ruled that the estate had shown good cause for the delay and denied the motion to dismiss, based on the erroneous information regarding the defendant's address. The court stated:
Service was obtained on the wrong Trinity Industries, Inc., on July 8, 1998. It was at that time that Plaintiff learned that the Trinity Industries, Inc., which was served was not the same Trinity Industries, Inc., contem
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|