Blair v. Durham
134 F.2d 729 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), an amended complaint relates back to the date of the original complaint and is not barred by the statute of limitations if it arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. A change in the theory of negligence does not constitute a new cause of action so long as the underlying factual basis and injury remain the same.
Facts:
- Algernon Blair was the general contractor for repairs on a U.S. Post Office building where federal employees, including Nelle B. Durham, continued to work during the renovation.
- C. W. Roberts, Blair's superintendent, supervised the project.
- Blair's employees constructed a scaffold in the room where Durham worked, which was used by Blair's company and its subcontractors.
- On August 17, 1938, a heavy piece of timber fell from the scaffold and struck Durham on the head, causing significant injury.
- At the specific time of the incident, an employee of the Farwell Company, a subcontractor, was using the scaffold.
Procedural Posture:
- Nelle B. Durham filed an action in federal court against Algernon Blair and C. W. Roberts, alleging negligence in the handling of timbers on a scaffold.
- During the first jury trial, Durham was granted leave by the court to file an amended complaint.
- The amended complaint changed the theory of negligence to the negligent construction of the scaffold.
- Blair and Roberts moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing it was a new cause of action barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
- Upon retrial, a jury returned a verdict for Durham for $6,500.
- Blair and Roberts, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Durham was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an amended complaint that changes the allegation of negligence from the negligent handling of materials on a scaffold to the negligent construction of the scaffold itself state a new cause of action that is barred by the statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
No. An amended complaint that changes the specific theory of negligence does not state a new cause of action barred by the statute of limitations so long as it arises from the same underlying transaction and asserts a violation of the same legal right. The court held that under Rule 15(c), the amendment related back to the original filing date because both the original and amended complaints concerned the same injury caused by a timber falling from the same scaffold on the same day. The court reasoned that a 'cause of action' is the violation of a single right by a single legal wrong, and alleging multiple grounds of negligence for the same injury does not create multiple causes of action. The true test is whether the amendment concerns 'the same matter more fully or differently laid.' Here, whether the negligence was in the use or the construction of the scaffold, both were breaches of the same duty owed to Durham. The court also rejected the appellant's defense that a subcontractor's employee caused the injury, holding that the general contractor has a non-delegable duty to ensure safety when the work is inherently dangerous, which using an unguarded scaffold over workers was.
Analysis:
This case provides a key interpretation of the 'relation back' doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), reinforcing the rule's liberal approach to pleadings. It establishes that a plaintiff is not locked into their initial legal theory and may amend their complaint to assert a different theory of liability based on the same factual core without being time-barred. This decision prioritizes resolving disputes on their merits over rigid pleading technicalities, influencing how courts analyze whether an amendment introduces a truly 'new' claim versus a permissible clarification or shift in legal strategy concerning the same underlying events.
Unlock the full brief for Blair v. Durham