Opinion ID: 2198880
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the allegations of negligence in plaintiff's amended complaint.

Text: Defendant moved to strike the following language from paragraph 6 of plaintiff's amended complaint: 6. Defendant was negligent in that: a) He drove a golf ball in the direction of plaintiff without first giving adequate warning to plaintiff of his intent to do so. b) He drove a golf ball in the direction of plaintiff without first giving timely warning to plaintiff of his intent to do so. c) He drove a golf ball in the direction of plaintiff while defendant was so concealed from plaintiff's view that he knew or should have known that plaintiff had no knowledge of his location on the golf course. d) He drove a golf ball in the direction of plaintiff when defendant knew or should have known that the plaintiff was in danger of being struck by said ball. e) He drove a golf ball so negligently that its line of travel could not be reasonably foreseen by him and he therefore knew or should have known that he was endangering the safety of other persons within range of the flight of the ball. Defendant contends that this language did not contain a single fact which would show the area where the accident occurred except that it occurred on the green of hole number one; that plaintiff nowhere in his complaint set forth any facts which would show a duty on the part of defendant to warn the plaintiff or that such warning was necessary or practical. The questions presented here are whether the allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint are sufficient to give to defendant sufficient notice of the charges which he must meet and whether the complaint complies with Rule 9(b), Del.C.Ann., providing, inter alia, that in all averments of negligence the circumstances constituting negligence shall be stated with particularity. Plaintiff is not required to set forth in detail the evidence upon which plaintiff bases his claim. It is usually necessary to allege only sufficient facts out of which a duty is implied and a general averment of negligent failure to discharge that duty. 9 Cyc.Civil Law & Procedure (Perm.Ed.), § 5954. That this is what was intended when Rule 9(b) was promulgated is evidenced by the fact that in Form 9  adopted by the Superior Court as the official form of complaint for negligence and which has been said by that court to be within the requirement of Rule 9(b)  the negligence is set forth as follows: 2. Defendant was negligent in that: (a) Defendant drove at an excessive speed. (b) Defendant drove through a red light. (c) Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid hitting plaintiff. We think that the averments of the complaint sufficiently set forth the allegations of negligence and comply with Rule 9 (b) of the Superior Court. As Judge Christie in his opinion overruling defendant's motion said, There is only so much that can be said about hitting a golf ball without warning.