Opinion ID: 1838376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligence alleged in the complaint.

Text: Hewitt and Reliance contend that Mrs. Lang cannot now base her recovery on acts of Hewitt's other than the push because the complaint pleaded the push as the only negligent conduct. Her amended complaint made the following allegations of negligence: 5. That on or about July 16, 1970, the plaintiff was a business invitee at the place of business, abovesaid, of defendant; that plaintiff and her friend were engaged in conversation and having a glass of beer while seated at the bar; that the defendant began to curse at them and ordered them out of the tavern; that plaintiff proceeded to leave the tavern and defendant came around the bar toward plaintiff and began assisting plaintiff out of the tavern; that in the process of getting her out of the tavern, the defendant did negligently and carelessly push the plaintiff causing her to fall down the steps whereupon she suffered severe injuries; that the defendant was negligent in the manner in which he put plaintiff out of his tavern and that he pushed her and made her fall; and the act on the part of the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's hereinafter described injuries. (Emphasis added.) The well-known test for determining the sufficiency of a complaint was stated in Weber v. Naas: [2] . . . In pleading negligence and in setting forth the facts which are alleged to constitute negligence, the general rule is that only ultimate facts are to be pleaded and it is not good pleading to plead matters of evidence. . . . If the pleading fairly informs the opposite party of what he is called upon to meet by alleging the specific acts which resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and there is included a general statement that the defendant negligently performed the acts complained of, the pleading is sufficient. This standard was more recently relied upon in Wulf v. Rebbun. [3] The emphasized portions of the complaint do charge acts other than the push for which Hewitt could be held liable in negligence for the injuries that Mrs. Lang sustained. The amended complaint did not detail each specific act of Hewitt, but it did provide a warning that Mrs. Lang was alleging negligence in the manner in which he put her out in addition to the negligence of the push. Thus, Hewitt and Reliance had warning of some basis for negligence other than the push. By the Court. Judgment and order reversed.