Preview:

No.

84-555

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1985

ARLYN J. SOOY,

P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

PETROLANE S T E E L GAS,

INC.,

e t al.,
D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s ,

APPEAL FROM:

D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of B e a v e r h e a d , T h e H o n o r a b l e Frank D a v i s , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: B u r g e s s , Joyce & Whelan; Butte, Montana For Respondents: T h o m a s F.

Joyce a r g u e d ,

S m i t h , P o h l m a n & A l l e n ; L i s a S w a n argued f o r P e t r o l a n e S t e e l G a s , B u t t e , Pllontana P o o r e , R o t h & R o b i n s o n ; I . R i c h a r d O r i z o t t i argued for Exxon Corp., B u t t e , Montana H e n n i n g s o n & P u r c e l l ; J a m e s E. P u r c e l l argued f o r Shell O i l , B u t t e , Montana
Corette,

Submitted: Decided:

Nay 30, 1 9 3 5 $ J o v e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 35

Filed:

q)J$f"1, f

; ,

jf4j$jjj

M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court.

This Court,

is

an

appeal

from

a

judgment Beaverhead for

of

the

District
denying file an for

Fifth

Judicial
J.

District,
Sooy's

County,

plaintiff, amended

Arlyn

motion

leave

to

complaint

and

granting

respondents'

motions

summary j u d g m e n t . O n June 19,

W e reverse.

1980,

Sooy a t t e m p t e d t o

light

the pilot

l i g h t on t h e h o t w a t e r h e a t e r i n t h e b a s e m e n t o f h i s home i n Wisdom. An e x p l o s i o n ensued and h e w a s s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d .

O J u n e 1 7 , 1 9 8 3 , h e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n S i l v e r Bow C o u n t y . n In the complaint Steel Sooy a l l e g e d Inc. that he bought propane from

Petrolane

Gas,

and P e t r o l a n e

S t e e l Gas S e r v i c e ,

t h a t t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o add a n o d o r i z i n g a g e n t t o t h e propane, and as a result, he could not

smell

t h e escaping In

p r o p a n e when h e l i t t h e m a t c h t h a t c a u s e d t h e e x p l o s i o n .

a d d i t i o n t o P e t r o l a n e S t e e l G a s , I n c . a n d P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas Service, Sooy named, by fictitious names, other defendants
He also alleged

whose n e g l i g e n c e may h a v e c a u s e d him i n j u r y . damages t o h i s r e a l p r o p e r t y .

The t w o named d e f e n d a n t s were s e r v e d on J u n e 2 2 ,

1983,

and r e s p o n d e d on J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 8 3 , b y f i l i n g a m o t i o n t o d i . s m i s s and to change venue to Beaverhead County. The m o t i o n to

c h a n g e v e n u e was g r a n t e d . Shortly thereafter, Sooy l e a r n e d t h a t Exxon, S h e l l O i l ,

P e t r o l a n e S u p p l y a n d P e r r y Gas P r o d u c t s w e r e t h e r e F i n e r s o f propane furnished for to named the on the defendants odorant
to

and the

that

they a t

were the

responsible refinery. summons

adding

propane

Therefore, issued, and

June

11, 1 9 8 4 ,

h e had of

additional original

summons,

a

copy

the

complaint,

and n o t i c e w e r e s e r v e d on J u n e 1 4 ,

1984 on G .

T.

Corporation, t h e designated agent f o r s e r v i c e of process of t h e f o u r newly d i s c o v e r e d d e f e n d a n t s . a s John Doe No. 3; Exxon was made a p a r t y 4; Petrolane
6.

S h e l l O i l a s John Doe No.

S u p p l y a s J o h n Doe No.

5 , and P e r r y Gas a s John Doe No.

Each o f t h e s e f o u r d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s and moved f o r summary judgment. They a r g u e d t h a t none o f 1 4 , 1 9 8 4 , and t h a t t h e

them knew o f s t a t u t e of

t h e a c t i o n u n t i l June

l i m i t a t i o n s had r u n on S o o y ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t them

on J u n e 1 9 , 1983. O August n 15, 1984, a h e a r i n g was h e l d a t which Sooy The amended c o m p l a i n t

moved t o f i l e an amended c o m p l a i n t .

changed t h e names o f t h e John Does t o t h e t r u e names o f t h e f o u r c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t s , r e a l l e g e d Count One, d e l e t e d Count
Two

relating

t o property

damage,

and

substituted a

strict

l i a b i l i t y claim a r i s i n g out of i n i t i a l complaint. On August

the 30,

facts

set f o r t h i n t h e

1984, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

d e n i e d t h e motion t o f i l e a n amended c o m p l a i n t and g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n s f o r summary judgment. Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review: (1) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Sooy l e a v e t o f i l e an amended c o m p l a i n t . (2) the Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t limitations,

s t a t u t e of

S 27-2-204,

MCA,

barred

Sooy's

c l a i m a g a i n s t Exxon,
Gas.

Shell O i l ,

P e t r o l a n e S u p p l y , and P e r r y

We

find

first

that

the

District

Court

did

err

in

d e n y i n g Sooy l e a v e t o f i l e a n amended c o m p l a i n t . M.R.Civ.P. as a

Rule 15 ( a )

p r o v i d e s t h a t "A p a r t y may amend h i s p l e a d i n g o n c e of course at any

matter

time

before

a

responsive

pleading i s served

..."

A t t h e t i m e Sooy moved f o r l e a v e

to

file

an

amended and

complaint, Perry Gas

defendants had made

Exxon, no

Shell,

Petrolane pleading.

Supply,

responsive

Therefore,

a p p e l l a n t should have been allowed t o

amend h i s c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e s e f o u r d e f e n d a n t s r e g a r d l e s s of whether the court later felt bound Steel to grant summary

judgment.

Defendants

Petrolane

Gas,

Inc.

,

and

P e t r o l a n e S t e e l Gas S e r v i c e d i d f i l e r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s a n d t h u s , a s t o t h e m , a p p e l - l a n t would n o t h a v e b e e n a b l e t o amend h i s complaint "as a matter of course." However, Rule 1 5 ( a )

f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t onc e a r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g i s s e r v e d "a p a r t y may written amend consent h i s p l e a d i n g o n l y by of the adverse leave of party; requires." c o u r t o r by

and

leave

s h a l l b e f r e e l y g i v e n when j u s t i c e added.)

so

(Emphasis

I n L i e n v . Murphy C o r p o r a t i o n

(Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 6 5 6 P.2d

8 0 4 , 39 St.Rep.

2 2 5 2 , t h e p l a i n t i f f moved t o amend n i n e y e a r s The D i s t r i c t C o u r t finding t h a t there

a f t e r t h e c o m p l a i n t was o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d . d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o amend.
We reversed,

was n o b a d f a i t h , d i l a t o r y m o t i v e , o r u n d u e d e l a y on t h e p a r t of the movant. stemmed and In addition,

we

found

that

the

amended

complaint complaint defendant. would not

from t h e cause

same o c c u r r e n c e a s t h e o r i g i n a l only minimal prejudice to the

would

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a l l o w i n g a n amended c o m p l a i n t have prejudiced as the Sooy two defendants sought who filed an

responsive additional facts.

pleadings, theory of

merely

to

add

l i a b i l i t y based

on t h e

same o p e r a t i v e

Further,

t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t S o o y ' s m o t i o n t o

amend t h e c o m p l a i n t w a s m o t i v a t e d b y b a d f a i t h o r a d e s i r e t o delay. Court Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t erred by not granting Sooy leave

to

amend.

With

respect Gas,

t o t h e o r i g i n a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s , and Petrolane Steel Gas

P ~ t r o l a n eS t e e l the amended

Inc.,

Service,

complaint

relates

back

to

the

filing

of

the

original

c o m p l a i n t a s p r o v i d e d by R u l e 1 5 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. The s e c o n d i s s u e p r e s e n t e d by t h i s c a s e r e q u i r e s t h a t

w e re-examine
P.2d 1184.

Vincent v.
In

Edwards

( 1 9 7 9 ) , 184 Mont. the original

92,

601 was

that

c a s e when

complaint

f i l e d t h e p l a i n t i f f had p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d two d e f e n d a n t s . T h r e e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s whom t h e p l a i n t i f f had n o t p o s i t i v e l y identified

Download b7360d62-49f6-46d9-9a19-a398fa88a859.pdf

Montana Law