(Download) "Thompson v. Shanley" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Thompson v. Shanley
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 31, 1932
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
Negligence ? Injury to Personal Property ? Automobiles ? Ownership ? Parties Plaintiff ? Defect of Parties ? Complaint ? Sufficiency ? Rule ? Exemplary Damages ? Insufficient Pleading. Actions ? Injury to Personal Property ? All Interested in Property must Join as Plaintiffs. 1. In an action for injury to personal property, all the owners of it, whether as partners or otherwise, must join in the action as parties plaintiff, the purpose of the rule being to save defendant from further vexation at the hands of other claimants to the same demand. Same ? Injury to Automobile ? Fatal Defect of Parties Plaintiff ? Non-suit Proper. 2. Under the above rule, held in an action to recover damages for injury done to an automobile in a collision, that where it appeared that the record title to the car stood in the name of plaintiff but two others, members of his family, had a half interest therein, there was a fatal defect of parties plaintiff resulting in failure of proof as to ownership, for which a motion for non-suit should have been granted. Same ? Appeal and Error ? What Does not Amount to Technicality in Matter of Requiring Action to be Brought in Name of Real Party in Interest. 3. While matters of mere technicality are not favored on appeal, the rule which requires that actions must be brought in the name of the real party in interest (sec. 9067, Rev. Codes 1921) may not be called a bare matter of form, in view of its purpose (see par. 1), and for the further reason that its observance will tend to relieve the public, in part at least, of the expense incident to additional litigation. Pleading ? Negligence ? Complaint ? Sufficiency ? How to be Determined. 4. The sufficiency of the complaint in a negligence action must be determined from the facts alleged and not from the use of such terms as "negligently," "recklessly," "carelessly," etc. Same ? Negligence ? When Complaint Sufficient. 5. Where the complaint alleges negligence in general terms, by stating what was done and that it was done negligently, it is not necessary to plead the particular omissions which render the acts complained of negligent. - Page 236 Negligence ? Exemplary Damages ? Complaint ? Contents. 6. To warrant the recovery of exemplary damages in a tort action the complaint must allege either that the act complained of was done maliciously, wilfully or wantonly, or the facts surrounding its commission must be set forth with such particularity as that one or more of such elements may be inferred therefrom. Same ? Automobile Accident ? Insufficiency of Complaint to Warrant Recovery of Exemplary Damages. 7. Complaint in an action arising out of an automobile collision, alleging that defendant was driving at the rate of 40 miles an hour and on the wrong side of the road, held sufficient to sustain a charge of mere negligence, but insufficient, under the last above rule, to warrant recovery of exemplary damages. Same ? Exemplary Damages ? Insufficiency of Complaint ? Evidence in Support of Such Damages Inadmissible. 8. In the absence of a proper pleading of exemplary damages, (see par. 6, above), in an automobile accident case, evidence of statements made by the defendant driver after the collision introduced for the purpose of showing plaintiffs right to exemplary damages was inadmissible.
 "Thompson v. Shanley" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}