Case Title: Walden v. Mineral Equipment Co.

Citation: 406 So. 2d 385

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1981-10-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
406 So. 2d 385 (1981)
Mary Katherine WALDEN, etc.
v.
MINERAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, et al.
No. 80-348.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 30, 1981.
*386 John T. Roach, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
William T. Mills, II, of Porterfield, Scholl, Clark & Harper, Birmingham, for appellee Minerals Equipment Co.
Eugene D. Martenson and Robert M. Girardeau, of Huie, Fernambucq, Stewart & Smith, Birmingham, for appellee Argo & Co.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Mary Katherine Walden from a summary judgment granted in favor of Mineral Equipment Company, John L. Jordan, and Argo and Company in a wrongful death action.
On April 8, 1974, Harold William Walden was killed by a falling container of coal weighing several tons as he was working at the bottom of a mine elevator shaft under construction.
On February 28, 1975, the widow, Mary Katherine Walden, filed her summons and complaint, as administratrix, against United States Steel Corporation, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, John J. Cowin, R. A. Gallentine, Edward Stamper, James Thrasher, William Lovejoy, and a number of fictitious parties defendant. Those fictitious parties defendant, insofar as material to this appeal, were "E" the person and "G" the corporation "responsible for the operation, inspection or maintenance of the hoist which injured the plaintiff's intestate at the time and place referred to in plaintiff's complaint," and "J" the "corporation responsible for the wrongful or negligent conduct or the injuries to the plaintiff's intestate at the time and place referred to in plaintiff's complaint; whose true and correct names and legal descriptions are otherwise unknown to the plaintiff, but will be substituted by amendment by the plaintiff when ascertained by the plaintiff."
The complaint as originally filed contained the following:
The initial complaint also contained a count two alleging the combined and concurrent negligence of the defendants. The complaint was amended on January 24, 1977, to add count three, which also alleged negligent or wanton conduct of the defendants and was again amended on July 29, 1977, by adding the following:
On May 17, 1979, the complaint was further amended to add:
The defendants, J. L. Jordan and Mineral Equipment Company, filed motions to dismiss, raising the statute of limitations as a bar, which were treated as motions for summary judgment by the trial court. The defendant, Argo and Company, filed a motion for summary judgment, which also raised the statute of limitations as a bar. All three motions were granted on September 24, 1980. Plaintiff Walden appeals, following the overruling of her motion to vacate judgment. Three recent cases compel affirmance: Minton v. Whisenant, 402 So. 2d 971 (Ala.1981); Fowlkes v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 392 So. 2d 803 (Ala.1980), *389 and Shirley v. Getty Oil Company, 367 So. 2d 1388 (Ala.1979).
More than thirty-nine months after the death of Harold Walden, the complaint was amended to substitute Mineral Equipment Company for fictitious party "J" and allege liability because it "designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, or sold the Nordberg mine hoist ... that was in use in performing the work."
"J" was described in the caption of the complaints as "the corporation responsible for the wrongful or negligent conduct or the injuries to the Plaintiff's intestate at the time and place referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint...." Neither this nor any other allegation referred to the "designer, manufacturer, assembler, distributor, or seller" of the hoist. There were no allegations in the body of the complaint charging that the "designer, manufacturer, assembler, distributor, or seller" of the hoist was negligent. Fowlkes v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., supra. Minton v. Whisenant, supra, is controlling on this point. The trial court was therefore, correct in dismissing the complaint against Mineral Equipment Company. The amendment adding it as a party does not relate back to the original complaint and, therefore, the statute of limitations is a bar to this claim.
Although Walden did not substitute Jordan and Argo and Company for fictitious parties "E" and "G" as those "responsible for the operation, inspection and maintenance of the hoist" until May 17, 1979, the record shows, via the depositions of James Copeland, J. D. Allen, and James J. Rodriquez, that Walden was aware of the true name and identities of these two defendants as early as July and August, 1976.
In Shirley v. Getty Oil Co., supra, this Court was faced with a situation where the plaintiffs, several months after filing a wrongful death action naming fictitious parties, took the deposition of an individual which revealed facts from which the plaintiffs might have decided to bring an action against him. However, the plaintiffs did not attempt to substitute the individual for one of the fictitious parties until more than seventeen months after the taking of his deposition. In that case, the Court said:
367 So. 2d  at 1390-1391.
The depositions taken in July and August of 1976 show that the plaintiff cannot claim that she was ignorant of the names and identities of Jordan and Argo and Company, within the meaning of Rule 9(h), until May of 1979, the time of the filing of the amendment. These claims, too, are time barred.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
[*]  Throughout the complaint, the defendant is referred to as Minerals Equipment Company. However, the case was brought to this Court under the name Mineral Equipment Company.