Richardson v. Long Island Rail Road

Plaintiff, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, moves to vacate items 4 and 5 of defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars upon the ground that the acci*162dent in question occurred under circumstances that render the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applicable.

It is, of course, true that where a plaintiff relies on the foregoing doctrine, a defendant is not entitled to particulars as to the specific acts of negligence which are claimed to have caused the accident (Haines v. City of Newburgh, 234 App. Div. 389; Hamilton v. New York State Realty & Terminal Co., 66 N. Y. S. 2d…