 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root6/20/2005
of Envtl. Quality, 191 Ariz. 40, 951 P.2d 1232 (App. 1997), aff'd in part, 194 Ariz. 22, 976 P.2d 872 (1999) (dismissal for failure to state a claim proper only when plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts justifying relief). Here, taking Rowland's assertions as true, Newman v. Maricopa County, 167 Ariz. 501, 808 P.2d 1253 (App. 1991), he seeks recovery for injuries resulting from an accident caused by a Kellogg employee. Rowland could recover if he proved that the accident was caused by the employee's negligence and that his injuries resulted from the accident. Thus, because the letter, albeit marginally, set forth facts that if proven would entitle Rowland to relief, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) would not have been appropriate. Fidelity.
In light of our determination that Rowland's letter was sufficient to serve as a complaint under the applicable rules, it is deemed to have been constructively filed before the limitations period had elapsed. Whittaker. We therefore need not address Rowland's additional arguments based on lack of prejudice to Kellogg and Arizona's "savings statute," A.R.S. ยง 12-504.
Disposition
Based on the foregoing, the judgment in favor of Kellogg is reversed.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING:
JOHN PELANDER, Chief Judge
M. JAN FLOREZ, Presiding Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|