At common law and under the code practice, allegations of time and place were generally immaterial and an inaccurate allegation was not prejudicial on a motion testing sufficiency of the pleadings or upon variance at trial. In existing Alabama practice, a videlicet is used in order to prevent prejudice from inaccuracies. It has been assumed that the reason for the deviation from common law, making such allegations material, was a belief that accuracy in pleading time and place would facilitate the identification and isolation of the transaction or event in issue and would provide a mechanism for early adjudication or testing of certain claims and defenses, particularly, the statute of limitations. An interpretation that averments of time and place are required in every pleading runs counter to the entire concept of notice pleading. Another area of apprehension stems from the need for a videlicet under present practice.
Earlier proposals suggest specific reference to abolition of the necessity of a videlicet.
This has not been done on the theory that such reference would be unnecessary since Rule 15, Amendments, is applicable to any evidence relating to time and place. Therefore, the failure to make specific reference to the abolition of the need for videlicet is no justification for any assumption of its continued necessity under these rules. Decisions under such rules indicate that it has been interpreted to require no greater particularity than is already required in Alabama. However, the maximum degree of detail of which plaintiff might be capable is not necessary. Greater particularity may be required in pleading special damage where such damage is an essential ingredient of the claim than where such special damage is not necessary to make out a prima facie case.