Opinion ID: 2162686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Second Amended Answer.

Text: The purpose of the second amended answer was to raise the issue of the negligence of other members of the Florence volunteer fire department who were nonparties to the action. The plaintiff contends that since this answer was interposed after the three-year statute of limitations [1] had run and since the defendant knew of the alleged negligence of the other members of the fire department prior to the running of the statute of limitations, the defendant was foreclosed from pleading any other person's negligence which caused this accident. An interesting problem would be posed if there were any allegation or any proof that the defendant deliberately withheld information concerning a tort-feasor (or tortfeasors) unknown to the plaintiff until after the statute of limitations had expired, and then he attempted to shift the majority of the negligence to the nonparty (or nonparties). This case does not present that situation, however. Both the plaintiff and the defendant knew the other members of the volunteer fire department and both knew who participated in the hose test in question. The plaintiff decided to sue just the defendant who was the pump operator. Had he so desired, he could have named as defendants Tom Witynski, the other nozzleman, William Taft, the chief of the fire fighters, or anyone else present. The plaintiff deliberately chose not to name those persons even though their participation in the events which occurred on May 3d was fully known to him. The plaintiff, under the facts of this case, should not be able to complain that the defendant raised the negligence of these and other known parties after the statute of limitations had expired. In a different case, the objection raised by the plaintiff here may be proper. That question will be reserved for judgment in such a future case. In any event, the trial court here decided not to permit the pleadings to be amended. Two reasons were given: First, the second amended answer was served after the pretrial and only two weeks before the trial was to begin. Second, the defendant did not request the permission of the court to file the amended pleadings. The trial court also pointed out, before trial, that nothing would prevent the defendant from presenting his proof that others were negligent and then amending his pleading to the proof pursuant to sec. 269.44, Stats., [2] after the verdict. Sec. 269.44, Stats., gives the trial court wide discretion as to amendment of pleadings. See Wipfli v. Martin (1967), 34 Wis. 2d 169, 173, 148 N. W. 2d 674, wherein the court quoted from Turner Mfg. Co. v. Gmeinder (1924), 183 Wis. 664, 669, 198 N. W. 611, as follows: `It is well settled that when a trial court keeps within the limitations imposed by the statute as to allowing amendments, the power is very broad, resting in sound discretion, and the decision will not be disturbed except for a clear abuse of judicial power.' Ordinarily the court is asked to determine that a trial court did abuse its discretion in permitting pleadings to be amended. In this case, as in a few others, the court is presented with a situation wherein the trial court refused to permit the amendment of the pleading. In Wipfli v. Martin, supra, at pages 173 and 174, this court stated: The cases cited above all sustain the action of the trial court in instances wherein the pleadings were amended. Conversely, in Platt v. Schmidt (1902), 115 Wis. 394, 398, 91 N. W. 992, where the trial court refused to allow the amendment, it is stated: `When it appears that an omission in any proceeding is material, or that proceedings taken by a party so fail to conform to provisions of law as to be fatal to rights which might otherwise be protected, and that such omission or failure is through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, it is abuse of discretion to refuse to supply such omission and permit amendment of the proceedings so as to remove the technical obstacles to a litigation of the merits of the controversy.' From these cases and others we conclude the rule to be that sec. 269.44, Stats., should be liberally construed to permit the amendment of pleadings so as to present the entire controversy providing the amendment does not unfairly deprive the opposing party of timely opportunity to meet the issue created by the amendment. The trial court cannot be held to have abused its discretion in denying the amendment to the pleading because the presentation of the merits of the defendant's case was not prejudiced. In granting the plaintiff's motion to strike the amended answer, the trial court pointed out that the defendant would nevertheless be permitted to introduce evidence showing that a nonparty or nonparties were negligent and that a question concerning the negligence of the nonparties could be submitted to the jury. The defendant never attempted to introduce evidence which indicated that parties other than the litigants were negligent. Neither did he object to the form of the verdict which merely required the jury to compare the negligence of the plaintiff with that of the defendant. The defendant's contention notwithstanding, it appears that the merits of this case were fully tried. The jury found that the defendant was four times as negligent as the plaintiff. Had a certain percentage of the negligence been attributed to nonparties, the ratio of the defendant's negligence to the plaintiff's negligence would undoubtedly have remained the same. The defendant, as a joint tort-feasor, would have been liable for even a greater percentage of the damages. Under circumstances similar to this one, this court has consistently held that persons in the position of the defendant here could not have been prejudiced. Moreover, the defendants were not prejudiced by the omission to include negligence on the part of Finley in the total causal negligence which the jury was to take into consideration in finding the percentage thereof attributable to the plaintiff and Wescott, respectively. If the jury had found that a certain percentage of that total negligence was attributable to Finley, that would have left a balance of less than one hundred per cent attributable to Wescott and the plaintiff; and if the jury had apportioned that balance between the latter two in the same ratio in which it apportioned the one hundred per cent between them (as the jury presumably would have done), then,even though the percentage attributable to each of them would have been less than eighty-five and fifteen per cent, respectively,the percentage found attributable to the plaintiff would have continued to be less than the percentage attributable to Wescott. In that event, in computing the amount which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover under the verdict, the deduction from the jury assessment of damages would have to be a smaller percentage thereof than the fifteen per cent deduction made under the verdict which was returned; and the defendants would have been liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of his consequently greater recovery. Therefore, the omission to have the jury include negligence on the part of Finley in finding what percentage of the total negligence was attributable to Wescott and the plaintiff, respectively, was not prejudicial to the defendants .... Patterson v. Edgerton Sand & Gravel Co. (1938), 227 Wis. 11, 22, 23, 277 N. W. 636. See also, Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Harry Crow & Son, Inc. (1959), 6 Wis. 2d 396, 94 N. W. 2d 577; Ross v. Koberstein (1936), 220 Wis. 73, 74, 264 N. W. 642. The defendant was given every opportunity to present the merits of his case. Under such circumstances there was no abuse of discretion in denying the amendment to the pleadings shortly before trial. Even if we were to determine that the trial court abused its discretion, the error could not have been prejudicial.