Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Sinclair Refining Company v. Howell

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRule 8(b)Rule 8(d)Rule 16Rule 51pretrial orderadmissions in pleadingsworkmen's compensation

Facts

Hayward Howell was opening a filling station, and his nineteen-year-old brother, John Arthur Howell, was in Hayward's general employ. Sinclair's employee Hall was supervising installation of a 22-foot lighted pole near overhead high-voltage lines, and when extra help was needed, John Arthur came out and assisted while Hall observed him and gave instructions. Hall knew the danger from the power line and testified that safe supervision of the erection was his duty, yet no warning or protective precaution was given to John Arthur. The pole touched the high-voltage line and John Arthur was electrocuted.

Issue

Whether Sinclair was entitled to a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the theory that the decedent was subject to Alabama's Workmen's Compensation Act, either because that issue was in the case or because the decedent became Sinclair's employee. Also, whether the jury-instruction objection was preserved and whether denial of a new trial for excessiveness was reversible.

Rule

Under Rules 8(b) and 8(d), a responsive pleading must fairly meet the substance of an averment, and an averment not denied is admitted. Under Rule 16, a pretrial order controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified at trial to prevent manifest injustice. Under Rule 51, objections to jury instructions must state the grounds assigned, and on appeal denial of a new trial for excessiveness is reviewable only for error of law, including abuse of discretion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a diversity wrongful-death action filed in federal court in Birmingham, the complaint alleges that Mia Ortiz was not subject to Alabama's workers' compensation law. Red Mesa Logistics answers by denying negligence and alleging contributory negligence, then concludes, "Defendant denies plaintiff is entitled to any recovery."

At trial, Red Mesa Logistics moves for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy. How should the court rule?

Explanation. Under Rules 8(b) and 8(d), a responsive pleading must fairly meet the substance of the averment denied, and an averment not denied is admitted. A bare statement that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover does not fairly deny a specific allegation that the decedent was not subject to the workers' compensation act. Because that allegation is treated as admitted, the defendant cannot obtain judgment as a matter of law on exclusivity. (Derived from Sinclair Refining Company v. Howell (n.d.).)