Case Name: SIMPSON v. LA PLATA MINING AND SMELTING CO.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of Colorado
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1883-07-02
Citations: 3 Colo. L. Rep. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: SIMPSON v. LA PLATA MINING AND SMELTING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Law Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
SIMPSON v. LA PLATA MINING AND SMELTING CO.
(Circuit Court of the United States, District of Colorado,
July 2, 1883
Demurrer to Complaint.)
Negligence—Must be Stated with Particularity. In a suit for damages resulting from negligence, the complaint should state the circumstances constituting the negligence. To state that a lot of tanks were stacked near by where plaintiff had to pass, and one of them fell on and injured him, is not sufficient.

Opinion:
Hallett, J.
(orally).
In the case of William Simpson against the La Plata Mining and Smelting Company, an action to recover damages for injuries received while in the service of the company, the plaintiff avers that the defendant, through its superintendent, brought into the smelting house certain tanks or jackets, and stacked them up, or placed them on end near fvhere the plaintiff was required to pass, in the performance of his usual duties, in wheeling out slag; and that while he was passing these tanks, some one of them fell upon him and injured him. He has not described with particularity the position of the tanks, and what neglect there was in the superintendent in placing them where they were. He states briefly that the tanks were placed there, and that one of them fell upon him. I think that he should give in detail the position of the tanks, so that it may be seen what the act of negligence was on the part of the superintendent; how the tanks were placed, as evincing carelessness in the superintendent; and in what way they were left so as to be a source of danger to those who should pass by them. Certainly it is not enough to aver that the tanks were put there, and that one of them fell down. It may have been some extraordinary circumstance that caused the falling. If they were so placed that it might be reasonably expected they would topple over, he ought kf state that fact, describing the position so clearly that we may see from the complaint that the superintendent was careless in leaving them in the way in which they were left.
D. J. Haynes, for plaintiff.
Markham, Patterson & Thomas, for defendant.
Demurrer to complaint sustained, with leave to plaintiff to amend in thirty days.