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• Mugger blew P’s face away

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

Legal Duty Area

Drive-way

A & K Building

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

Drive-way

A & K Building

Legal Duty Area

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.

A& K “Premises”

Drive-way

A & K Building

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

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?