1 / 11

Pleadings – Sufficiency (Archibald)

Pleadings – Sufficiency (Archibald). Archibald. Facts As Pleaded. P drove truck to A & K A & K’s dock was full A & K told P to park on Fulton Opposite warehouse? Adjacent to driveway? A & K had custom of doing so A & K knew it was dangerous How? P had no way of knowing

herrod-gonzalez
Télécharger la présentation

Pleadings – Sufficiency (Archibald)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pleadings – Sufficiency(Archibald)

  2. Archibald

  3. Facts As Pleaded • P drove truck to A & K • A & K’s dock was full • A & K told P to park on Fulton • Opposite warehouse? • Adjacent to driveway? • A & K had custom of doing so • A & K knew it was dangerous • How? • P had no way of knowing • Mugger blew P’s face away

  4. Legal Theory Pleaded • P had legal duty to provide • Safe premises • Safe adjacent areas • Safe ingress & egress • On & beyond premises • EE’s to provide safety • On & beyond premises • Notice of danger • Police protection

  5. Legal Duty Area A & K Building Drive-way

  6. D’s 12(b)(6) Legal Argument • D had no duty unless P was • On Premises • Ingress or Egress • D had no duty on public roads

  7. Legal Duty Area A & K Building Drive-way

  8. P’s 1st Argument Against 12(b)(6) • Extent of premises is fact issue for jury • Jury could find premises extended to where P parked P’s 2nd Argument Against 12(b)(6) • D’s duty to warn/protect etc extended to public street.

  9. A& K “Premises” A & K Building Drive-way

  10. Court’s Reaction to 1st Argument • P never pled that truck was on premises • Instead, clearly distinguished between on & off premises • Besides, extent of premises is a question of law not fact • Doesn’t extend this far, period. • Is Court’s ruling consistent with Conley? • Isn’t there some set of facts under which the truck’s location was on “D’s premises”? • But is this a set of facts that could have been proved “in support of [Mitchell’s] claim” as pled? • Pleading yourself out of court

  11. Suppose P Had Simply Alleged “Truck Was On D’s Premises”? • Would that have survived 12(b)(6)? • Would it have violated Rule 11? • How should D have responded? • Why might P have wanted to frame complaint that way?

More Related