Bell vrule 8 - Case Brief Civ Pro I 2019 PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief Civ Pro I 2019...

Description

Bell v. Novick Transfer Co. 17 F.R.D. 279 (D. Md. 1955)

Parties:  

Bell, Plaintiff, Appellant Novick Transfer Co., defendant, appellee

Facts: The plaintiff, an infant, was in an automobile driving when a truck, owned by the defendant, ran into the automobile. The infant was injured and is suing for damages on the basis of negligence. The defendants filed a motion to have the case dismissed for: 1) Failure to state a claim against the defendants where relief can be granted 2) Accident occurred due to negligence 3) Fails to allege the specific act of negligence Procedural History: originally complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City Basis for the Dispute: the defense feels the complaint should be thrown out for improper filing Issue: Is the plaintiff required to law out facts in a complaint in a detailed and specific manner? Parties Arguments: Plaintiff: Defendant: 1) Failure to state a claim against the defendants where relief can be granted 2) Accident occurred due to negligence 3) Fails to allege the specific act of negligence Holding: The court states that the motion to dismiss is overruled. Although the manner in which the complaint was filed does not meet Maryland requirements, it is sufficient under Rule 8, which states “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Court’s reasoning: Although the manner in which the complaint was filed does not meet Maryland requirements, it is sufficient under Rule 8, which states “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Defendants are also not entitled to a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). This information could be obtained through interrogatories or other methods....