Marie Hattermann, by John Hattermann, her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Henry Siemann and Trina Siemann, Appellants

Marie Hattermann, by John Hattermann, her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Henry Siemann and Trina Siemann, Appellants. Negligence•—in causing a pa/rty to contract a contagious disease by sending to a-laundry clothing impregnated with disease — the name and nature of the disease required to be pleaded. The complaint in an action charged negligence and wrongful conduct upon the part of the defendants in delivering to the plaintiff and ordering her to wash and launder underclothing impregnated with a “dangerous and contagious disease of a venereal character,” hy reason of which the plaintiff had contracted a disease, and that the plaintiff had expended large sums of money for medical treatment in endeayoring to become cured of the disease. Held, that the allegation as to the nature and character of the disease which the plaintiff alleged that she had contracted was not sufficiently specific, and as it might he important to the defendants to know in advance of the trial exactly what the disease was, and as there did not appear to he any difficulty upon the part of the plaintiff in disclosing the facts sought, the plaintiff should he required to make her complaint more definite and certain hy alleging in it the name or nature, character or other description of the disease. Appeal by the defendants, Henry Siemann and another, from so-much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of' Hew York on the 17th day of August, 1895, as denies the defendants’ application for a bill of particulars and fails and omits to require the plaintiff to state and specify the name, nature and character or other description of the dangerous and contagious disease with which the plaintiff alleged that she bee,ame infected, contaminated and diseased as set forth in the notice of motion upon which the said order was. made, and from so much of said order as denies defendants’ applicar tion and fails and omits to require the plaintiff to specify the details and particulars of what the plaintiff alleges in the 6th paragraph of the complaint to be “ the fault, carelessness, negligence, wrongdoing- and unlawful conduct of the defendant,” and from so much of said order as denies defendants’ application and fails and omits to require the plaintiff to state and specify the times and dates of the suffering of the said plaintiff, and the length and period of time of her suffering and sickness, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 14th day of September, 1895, denying the defendants’ motion to resettle the order granting defendants’ motion for a bill of particulars, and to make the complaint more definite and certain. The order granted defendants some relief, but it is claimed that the court should have gone further and have compelled the plaintiff to state in her complaint the name, nature, character or other description of the dangerous and contagious disease which she claims she contracted, and to state in her bill of particulars the fault, carelessness, negligence, wrongdoing and unlawful conduct complained o£ Fred P. Pummel and Emcmuel J. Myers, for the appellants. John P. Whiting, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Williams, J.:] Williams, J.: So far as the bill of particulars is concerned, we think the defendants entitled to no further relief. The complaint states with sufficient clearness that the negligence and wrongful conduct on the part of defendants complained of, consisted of their wrongful delivering to plaintiff and directing her to wash and launder underclothing impregnated with disease, she being ignorant of its condition. As to the name, nature, character or other description of the disease, we think the complaint is not sufficiently specific, and that the order should have required it to be made more definite and certain. The complaint describes the disease as a dangerous and contagious disease of a venereal character. This is a very general description, and may cover a variety of diseases very different in their particular characteristics and readily distinguishable from each other. No affidavit on the part of the plaintiff was read, in opposition to the motion, tending to show that there was any difficulty in determining what the particular nature of the disease was. She, apparently, is a young woman, as she appears and sues by a guardian, and she might not of her own knowledge be able to state the particular name or nature of the disease, yet she alleged in her complaint that she had expended large sums of money for medical treatment, medicine and care in endeavoring to get cured of the disease, and, so far as appears, her medical attendant has had no difficulty in determining the particular nature of the disease and has informed her on the subject. It may well be important for the defendants to know in advance of the trial what the plaintiff claims the particular name and nature of the disease is, in order that they may be able to meet the question on the trial as to the plaintiff’s having contracted it in the manner she claims to have done. As there does not appear to be any difficulty in plaintiff’s disclosing in her complaint the fact called for, we think the order should have required it to be done. The order should be modified by requiring the plaintiff to make her complaint more definite and certain, by alleging therein the name, nature, character or other description of the disease claimed to have been contracted by her, and, as so amended, affirmed, with costs to abide event. Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey and Patterson, JJ., concurred. Order modified as directed in opinion, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to abide event.