Chapter 4: Negligence: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Question 1

General Rule

Answer 1

Even without specifying what the ∆ did negligently, the π may proceed if 1) does not ordinarily occur (>50%) 2) ∆ had exclusive control

Question 2

McDougland v. Perry (Spare-y tire)

Answer 2

π needs only to prove event likely not to occur without evidence

Question 3

Larson v. St. Francis (Catholic chairs)

Answer 3

RIL does not apply if ∆ does not have exclusive control

Question 4

Cruz v. Daimler Motors (clean airbags)

Answer 4

A manufacturer/seller may still be liable for RIL if other possibilities have sufficiently been eliminated

Question 5

James v. Wormuth (James and the Giant wire)

Answer 5

RIL cannot be applied if wire/object was not left negligently but intentionally

Question 6

Sullivan v. Crabtree (Crap!Thee gravel)

Answer 6

RIL creates burden on ∆ to show reasonable explanation, the strength of which depends of facts and strength of the inference

Question 7

Byrne v. Boadle (put flour on that burn)

Answer 7

The fact that some types of accidents occur, proves negligent cause with not more evidence needed