Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Adams, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-IA-01406-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-02-2006
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: PETITION GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20 - Sufficiency of complaint
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., and Carlson, J.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ.
Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2005
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: Ordered railroad to allow inspection of project by Plaintiffs
Case Number: 251-04-822CIV

Note: Petition Granted. Reversed and Remanded with Instructions. See Opinion of this Court handed down this date.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY




GLENN F. BECKHAM, LONNIE D. BAILEY, EDWARD BLACKMON, JR., FRANK JONES



 

Appellee: LONNIE ADAMS, JR., ET AL. WILLIAM R. GUY, THOMAS W. BROCK  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Personal injury - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20 - Sufficiency of complaint

Summary of the Facts: Forty-seven plaintiffs filed suit against Illinois Central Railroad Company alleging it violated the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq. The gravamen of the complaint is that the Railroad negligently exposed the plaintiffs to numerous hazardous materials. After learning the Railroad had begun an asbestos abatement project on approximately 70 of its locomotives, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a court order allowing their agent to be present and observe the project. Plaintiffs’ motion further sought authority to take pictures of the project and obtain samples of the materials being removed from the locomotives. The Railroad responded by asserting that the plaintiffs failed to follow Mississippi law regarding multi-plaintiff joinder and proper venue and asking the court to set a hearing on the Railroad’s Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion to Sever and Transfer. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Railroad to allow the inspection but refused to take up the Railroad’s motion regarding venue and joinder, setting it instead for the court’s next motion date. The trial court later denied the Railroad’s motion and ordered that plaintiffs file within 90 days a more fact specific complaint. Three days later, the trial court ordered the Railroad to allow plaintiffs to inspect the abatement site and to obtain samples of the materials removed from the locomotives. The Railroad filed a petition for interlocutory appeal, which the Supreme Court granted.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: For plaintiffs to be properly joined pursuant to M.R.C.P. 20, they must be bound together by some distinguishable litigable event. That is, there must be some claim of wrongful or actionable conduct which, if proven by plaintiffs at trial, would result in liability of the defendant to all joined plaintiffs. A review of the information provided by three of the plaintiffs clearly demonstrates the need for – and absence of – a distinct litigable event for proper joinder in this case. These three plaintiffs worked for the Railroad at different jobs during different time periods, and the complaint is silent as to where they worked. The other forty-four individual plaintiffs worked for the Railroad over a 62-year period of time, with individual periods of employment ranging from two to fifty years. The jobs of the various plaintiffs included engineer, bridge gang worker, switchman, section foreman, brakeman, conductor, cook, inspector, carman, signalman, trainman, laborer, welder’s helper, agent, operator, track maintenance worker, and clerk. At trial, each plaintiff would be required to show how, in their respective jobs, they were exposed to a specific toxic or dangerous substance. The forty-seven plaintiffs clearly have not alleged a distinguishable litigable event which connects them and they therefore were improperly joined. The complaint must disclose, in general terms, what each defendant did wrong to each plaintiff, and when and were the alleged wrong took place. The complaint in this case does not provide notice to the Railroad of when, where, or how any individual plaintiff claims to have been injured. Undertaking the representation of numerous plaintiffs is a commitment to represent each plaintiff, and it should not be made absent a contemporaneous commitment to conduct sufficient investigation to form a good faith belief that each plaintiff has a viable cause of action against a particular defendant. The case is remanded and the trial court instructed to stay all discovery; to provide the plaintiffs a reasonable time – not exceeding thirty days – to provide sufficient information for a determination of proper venue; and to dismiss, without prejudice, all plaintiffs who cannot satisfy venue requirements in the First Judicial District of Hinds County. If the trial court finds that one or more plaintiffs satisfy the venue requirements, those plaintiffs may proceed with separate cases in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. One of the plaintiffs may proceed with the currently filed action, and all others must be assigned new civil action numbers and proceed as in any other new lawsuit.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court