Opinion ID: 1928294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contributory Negligence Plea

Text: In his answer, Scott pleaded the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. In one instance, he stated that plaintiff was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to this accidentin another, he stated that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Brown challenges the sufficiency of those allegations to raise the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. He excepted to the court's oral charge, and the requested written charges on contributory negligence given by the court, on the same grounds stated here on appeali. e., no specific allegations. While Rule 8(c) ARCP provides that, In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively . . contributory negligence . . ., we opine that extensive factual allegations of contributory negligence need not be set out in an answer. The answer here in general terms is sufficient under the Rule. Cf. American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Napoli, 166 F.2d 24 (5th Cir. 1948). See also 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil, § 1274.