“There is a distinct difference in fact and law between gross or criminal negligence and actual intent to injure.”
How later courts described this case
- “There is a distinct difference in fact and law between gross or criminal negligence and actual intent to injure.”
- Rule 11 permission to appeal denied
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER ON PETITION TO REHEAR
LEWIS, Judge.
The plaintiff’s able and forceful Petition to Rehear points out no new matters of fact or law overlooked by us in reaching our conclusion. The Petition only reargues matters which were fully considered by us.
The plaintiff also asked that he be allowed to amend his complaint in this Court or, in the alternative, this Court remand the cause to the Circuit Court so that he would have an opportunity to amend there.
This Court considers only such matters as were brought to the attention of the Trial Court and acted upon or permitted by the Trial Court. Clement v. Nichols, 186 Tenn. 235 , 209 S.W.2d 23 (1948). Only in rare cases will an amendment be allowed in the appellate court. Tennessee Cent. R. Co. v. Brown, 125 Tenn. 351 , 143 S.W. 1129 (1911). This case in not one of those.
Further, even if the amendment were allowed, it does not add anything new to the complaint.
The Petition to Rehear is therefore respectfully denied at plaintiff’s cost.
TODD and DROWOTA, JJ., concur.