Negligence - Breach of Duty - Unspecified Negligence Flashcards
Res Ipsa Loquitur
The thing speaks for itself
Byrne v. Boadle
Barrel
The fact that an unusual accident occurred is enough to presume negligence. A barrel fell on plaintiff that would not have fallen without some negligence.
Old Res Ipsa Elements
The accident that produced the injury was one that typically would not happen without negligence
The instrumentality or agent that caused the accident was under the total control of the defendant
The circumstances showed that the plaintiff in now way caused or contributed to the accident.
New Res Ipsa Elements
Restatement (Third)
The event is a kind that normally doesn’t happen without negligence
Other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff or third person, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence
The indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff
Res Ipsa - Another Formulation
Restatement (Third)
Negligence can be inferred when the accident causing the harm is the type which ordinarily happens as a result of the negligence of a class of actors that the defendant is a member of.
Res Ips Jury Instructions
S
When juries are instructed on res ipsa, they are told they may draw an inference of negligence if all the elements are met but don’t have to
Res Ips Presumption of Negligence
Some courts say res ipsa is a presumption of negligence rather than an inference. Once the presumption is met, it falls on the defendant to prove otherwise
Res Ipsa With Alternate Story
If the defendant offers an alternate story, the case still must go to trial since the jury might not believe the defendant
Koch v. Norris Public Power District
No Other Explanation
A plaintiff can use res ipsa when there is no other substantial, significant or probable explanation of the accident. Defendant’s power line broke and fell in pleasant weather, causing a fire that harmed plaintiff’s property.
Res Ipsa Getting to a Jury
Judges use common sense to decide if res ipsa applies, and once they determine jurors have the common life experience to decide, it goes to a jury.
Res Ipsa - Certainty vs. Probability
Some courts require a certainty of negligence, rather than a probability
Res Ipsa for Rear Enders
Some courts allow juries to use res ipsa for rear enders
Warren v. Jeffries
Other Probable Explanation
A plaintiff cannot use res ipsa when there could be another probable explanation other than the defendant’s negligence. Kids were in the back seat of a call that started rolling downhill. One jumped out and the car rolled over him.
Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Statistical evidence alone is generally not enough for a jury to find for the plaintiff. She must support the statistical evidence with other evidence. Plaintifff sued for a slip and fall case and presented no evidence except statistics.
Plaintiff Withholding Evidence
If a plaintiff has evidence he fails to present, the court may take it as the evidence is unfavorable to the plaintiff and not allow res ipsa.
Res Ipsa with Specific Evidence
Traditionally, courts didn’t allow the plaintiff to use res ipsa in combination with specific evidence of the defendant’s negligence. Now some courts do as long as the evidence doesn’t give a complete explanation of the accident.
Lowrey v. Montgomery Kone, Inc.
Contradcting Evidence
If expert witnesses are needed and give contradicting testimony, that does not rule out res ipsa.
Giles v. City of New Haven
Plaintiff Contributes to Injury
Res ipsa can be used if the defendant doesn’t have total control of the instrumentality that caused the injury as long as a jury could find it more likely than not that the accident was caused by the defendant’s negligence. Res ipsa can be used even if the plaintiff contributed to the injury. Plaintiff was operating an elevator when it broke.
Res Ipsa - Total Control of Defendant Applied Loosely
Many courts apply the element that the defendant must have exclusive control loosely so cases can get to a jury. So, sometimes it’s enough to say that the defendant was one of the people who had control. But if the evidence suggests the defendant wasn’t negligent, the control rule may not permit res ipsa.
Res Ipsa - Defendant not in Control
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
Some courts allow res ipsa even if the defendant was not in control at the time of the accident as long as the plaintiff proves there were no other causes. For example, if a soda bottle explodes and the plaintiff proves it was defective and nothing else caused the bottle to explode, she can use res ipsa.
Collins v. Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc.
Res ipsa can apply when two defendants have consecutive control over a plaintiff. Plaintiff’s daughter admitted her to a nursing home for a few days. Plaintiff was dehydrated and had a broken leg when the daughter returned. Plaintiff sued the nursing home and transportation company. This rule is rarely used.
Res Ipsa - On-Going Relationship
Restatement (Third)
If two parties have an on-going relationship in which they share responsibility for dangerous activities, and one is negligent, it’s proper to use res ipsa against both.
