Court Opinion

ID: 9674178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:24:17.360352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.933586
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Court en Banc.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant contends in his motion for rehearing that the order of the trial court that plaintiff make his petition definite and certain “merely required him to state wherein and in what respect defendant’s knowledge was superior to that of the plaintiff (if he [elected] to proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur), or to state wherein and in what respect defendant was negligent and careless (if he elected to proceed on specific negligence).” If this were true, we would be inclined to agree with defendant that the trial court exercised sound discretion in sustaining the motion. But that is not what the order of the trial court required. The motion of defendant was that the plaintiff be required to aver specifically each .and all of the four matters therein set out, and the order of the trial court was that the plaintiff make the petition definite and certain as to the matters set forth in said motion. Plaintiff’s petition was sufficient to state a cause of *490action under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, which defendant admits in its motion for rehearing. Therefore, plaintiff was improperly required upon penalty of dismissal of his petition to allege specific negligence.
The other matters in the motion for rehearing do not require 'additional comment. Defendant’s motions for rehearing or to transfer to the court en banc are overruled.