Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Easterwood, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-M-02339-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-09-2006 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: of Illinois Central Railroad Company to Appeal from an Interlocutory Order to the Circuit Court of Holmes County and Request for Stay is denied. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Interlocutory appeal - Amended complaint - Notice pleading requirements Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Nature of the Case: Petition for Interlocutory Appeal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-28-2005 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Case Number: 2004-148 |
|
| Note: | This matter is before the Court en banc on the Petition of Illinois Central Railroad Company to Appeal from an Interlocutory Order of the Circuit Court of Holmes County and Request for Stay. The petition to appeal from an interlocutory order of the circuit court and request for stay is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY |
|||
| Appellee: | TIMOTHY EASTERWOOD, ET AL. |
|
||
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: | Interlocutory appeal - Amended complaint - Notice pleading requirements |
| Summary of the Facts: | Illinois Central Railroad Company filed a Petition to Appeal from an Interlocutory Order of the Circuit Court of Holmes County and Request for Stay. In the original complaints 54 plaintiffs filed suit against the Railroad, claiming they were damaged by exposure to various toxic substances. The Railroad filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to sever and transfer the plaintiffs. The court granted the motion and ordered each plaintiff to serve upon the Railroad a new, fact-specific amended complaint, subject to the requirements of M.R.C.P. Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11, setting forth facts as to the home address, social security number, job classification, and alleged disease of each plaintiff, and describes which plaintiff was exposed to which specific product and which specific substances manufactured by which specific manufacturer (if known) and in which workplace (by name and address) and for what specific time periods and frequencies. After the individual plaintiffs filed amended complaints as ordered, the Railroad sought dismissal of certain plaintiffs for their failure to allege the specific product causing them damage. The court denied the Railroad’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs and the Railroad filed this interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Mangialardi, 889 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 2004), the Court held the complaint was insufficient to meet minimum notice pleading requirements and ordered the plaintiffs to provide the missing information including the identification of the particular products each plaintiff claimed had caused them harm. Absent this information, the 137 manufacturers were unable to discern from the complaint the identity of any plaintiff claiming damage from their respective products. The case today is different. There is only one defendant, the Railroad. The amended complaints provide the Railroad with sufficient notice of each plaintiff’s claims, including the place, period of time, and instrumentality (asbestos and silica) of alleged injury. The amended complaints further allege sufficient information for a determination of appropriate venue. Accordingly, the petition for interlocutory appeal and request for stay are not well taken and should be denied. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
