L Negligence (§ 121*) — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Scope op Doctrine.

Since the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur involves an exception to the general rule’that negligence must be affirmatively shown, and is not to be inferred, it is applicable only when the nature of the accident itself, not only supports an inference of defendant’s negligence, but excludes all others.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 217-220, 224-228, 271; Dec. Dig. § 121.*]

2. Master and Servant (§ 265*) — Injury to Employé — Res Ipsa Loquitur —Applicability op Doctrine.

Generally, but not always, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is inapplicable to an action against an employer for injury to an employé.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 877-908; Dec. Dig. § 265.*

Application of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in actions for injuries to servants, see note to Carnegie Steel Co. v. Byers, 82 C. C. A. 121.]

3. Master and Servant (§ 265*) — Injury to Employé — Pleading—Res Ipsa Loquitur.

In an action for personal injury to an employé, a complaint charging that defendant negligently and carelessly had and kept stored in a building, in which it was engaged in manufacturing dynamite, a great quantity of dynamite and other high explosives, approximately 30,000 pounds, is sufficient to invoke the res ipsa loquitur doctrine where assumption of risk is required to be, but is not, pleaded; the complaint excluding any assumption that the negligence might have been the act of a fellow servant.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 877-908, 955; Dec. Dig. § 265.*]

4. Master and Servant (§ 262*) — Assumption op Risk — Pleading.

Under the California practice, assumption of risk must be pleaded.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 855-859; Dee. Dig. § 262.*

Assumption of risk incident to employment, see notes to Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Hennessey, 38 C. G. A. 314.]

5. Pleading (§§ 192, 367*) — Indefiniteness—Remedy.

Objection that allegations of a complaint are indefinite should be raised by a motion to make more definite and certain, and not by demurrer.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 408-427; Dec. Dig. §§ 192, 367.*]

6. Master and Servant (§ 256*) — Injury to Employé — Complaint—Sufficiency.

The complaint in an action against an employer for personal injury sufficiently stated a cause of action, as against demurrer, where it alleged that on a specific date plaintiff was employed by defendant, a manufacturer of explosives as a track foreman on a tramway; that, while plaintiff was so employed, defendant negligently had and kept stored in a building which it used dynamite and other high explosives, approximating 30,000 pounds; that, through such negligence, such explosives were permitted to and did explode, causing an explosion of other dyuamite and high explosives belonging to defendant; and that plaintiff was injured by the second explosion, etc.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 809-812, 815; Dec. Dig. § 256.*]