Opinion ID: 1806459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: withdrawal of specification of negligence

Text: V. Plaintiffs' next assignment of error is withdrawal of their specification 4.1: In negligently emerging from a private driveway and entering a highway without yielding the right of way to the plaintiff. In light of what has been said in Division II this specification should have been submitted. The specification actually used, a. She suddenly and without warning caused the car occupied by Richardsons to be placed in the path of Richard Karr., was broad enough to cover plaintiffs' theory. But plaintiffs elected to plead a more specific allegation of negligence. Since we hold there was sufficient evidence to make a jury case on the theory, the specification should have been submitted. In Kuehn v. Jenkins, 251 Iowa 557, 562, 100 N.W.2d 604 we said: The rule is well established that where there is sufficient evidence to warrant submission of pleaded specifications of negligence, it is error for the court not to do so. (Cases cited). In Mundy v. Olds, 254 Iowa 1095, 1102, 120 N.W.2d 469, 473, we phrased the rule a little differently: A plaintiff is entitled to have submitted to the jury such specifications of negligence as are properly pleaded and supported by the evidence. This is so the plaintiff may have the benefit of consideration by the jury of all the evidence necessary to establish negligence. We should add we do not hold necessary the submission of the same issue in two forms. Actual submission on retrial must await the development of evidence on retrial.