Court Opinion

ID: 9537353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:16:27.95419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:30.175231
License: Public Domain

Price, J.,
dissenting: I trust that I am not being too technical in feeling that this case is being decided incorrectly, but I firmly believe that it is the right of any defendant in a negligence action to be fairly apprised of the act or acts of negligence for which he is to be held accountable.
There is no dispute whatsoever as to the general rules announced in the cases cited in the opinion for the court and relied on by defendant. The parties agree as to their correctness — but differ only in their application to the facts of this case.
The amended petition alleges plaintiff was caused to slip and fall when she stepped in the oil and grease which defendant had negligently allowed to accumulate on the floor. The only act of negligence found by the jury (answer No. 2) was that her shoes were wet from water on the rest room floor, causing her to slip and fall. This was not even alleged by plaintiff as an act of negligence. It follows, therefore, that the jury acquitted defendant of the only act of negligence charged or implied, and found an act of negligence *458entirely different from any alleged or proved. Such being the case, under the rules of the Haley, Rasing, Rehler, Uhl and Morrison cases (cited in the opinion for the court), the general verdict is not permitted to stand and defendant is entitled to judgment on the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict.
I therefore dissent.