Schlagenhauf v. Holder

Facts

A diversity action sought damages for passengers injured when a Greyhound bus hit the rear of a tractor-trailer. The defendants included Greyhound, Schlagenhauf (the bus driver), Contract Carriers, Inc. (owner of the tractor) and National Lead Company (owner of the trailer). Greyhound cross-claimed against Contract Carriers and National Lead. Contract Carriers answered that Schlagenhauf's negligence contributed to Greyhound's damages. In a letter treated as part of its answer, it alleged that he was "not mentally or physically capable" of driving a bus at the time. Contract Carriers and National Lead then asked for an order that Schlagenhauf submit to mental and physical examinations by one specialist each in internal medicine, ophthalmology, neurology and psychiatry. An affidavit by Contract Carriers' lawyer said Schlagenhauf had seen red lights 10 to 15 seconds before the accident, that another witness saw the trailer's rear lights from three-quarters to one-half mile away, and that Schlagenhauf had been in a prior accident. Schlagenhauf's lawyers opposed the petition, arguing, among other things, that his condition was not in controversy and that good cause was not shown. While the petition was pending, National Lead cross-claimed that Greyhound and Schlagenhauf were negligent in letting him drive the bus when both knew his eyes and vision were impaired and deficient. Without a hearing, the District Court ordered nine examinations, although the petition asked for only four.

Issues

1. Could the Court of Appeals, on a petition for mandamus, review the District Court's examination order, including whether the Rule's "in controversy" and "good cause" requirements were met?
2. Does Rule 35, which allows a court to order a physical or mental examination of a party, validly apply to a defendant as well as a plaintiff?
3. Must the person examined under Rule 35 be an opposing party of the movant, or may codefendants move to examine a fellow defendant?
4. Did the movants make the showing of "in controversy" and "good cause" that Rule 35 requires for the examinations of Schlagenhauf?

Holding

The Court of Appeals had power on mandamus to decide all the issues, including good cause, in these special circumstances. Rule 35 is constitutional and within the Enabling Act as applied to defendants, and codefendants may seek an examination of a party defendant. But the movants made no affirmative showing, and the record could not support even the corrected order for four examinations. Though hesitant to set aside a visual examination alone, the Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration of the order.