Res Ipsa Loquitor

Question 1

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Answer 1

• allows plaintiff to meet burden of proof despite only really having circumstantial evidence -> create presumption of negligence by def by proving the core elements of res ipsa loquitor (basically, accident wouldn’t have happened w/o negligence on part of def)

Question 2

Res Ipsa Loquitor - Prima Facie Case

Answer 2

Pl must prove:

• the incident was of a type that ordinarily does not occur w/o negligence
• incident was caused by an agency or instrumentality solely in def’s control
• pl did not contribute to the cause

Question 3

Res Ipsa Loquitor - Burden of Proof

Answer 3

• standard for civil suits is normally preponderance of the evidence, but res ipsa loquitor lowers the bar

Question 4

Legal Effect of Res Ipsa Loquitor

Answer 4

Two competing views:

• basis for inference of negligence
• presumption of negligence

Question 5

Majority View on Res Ipsa Loquitor Effect

Answer 5

• RIL is basis only for inference of negligence (ie a conclusion that trier of fact may choose to draw from facts in light of circumstances, vs. mandatory as matter of law)
• NY view
• in such jurisdictions, res ipsa loquitor always goes to trier of fact (no directed verdicts)

Question 6

Minority View on Res Ipsa Loquitor Effect

Answer 6

• RIL = presumption of negligence as a matter of law
• California view
• presumption shifts the burden to the defendant -> needs to rebut either the negligence element or the causation element (show that negligence didn’t cause the injury)
• if def doesn’t rebut, there’s a directed verdict for pl

Question 7

What happens when pl has RIL case and def rebuts on a specific circumstance?

Answer 7

Case can go forward, but jury needs to be instructed (specific permissive inference instruction) -need to tell jury:

• they MAY draw the inference (make the leap) to conclusion that def was negligent
• BUT don’t make that conclusion unless you believe, after weighing ALL the evidence, it’s more probably than not

Question 8

Thompson v. Frankus

Answer 8

• 1955
  RIL not established yet
• Thompson tripped + fell on stairway in apt building - unable to recall specific cause of fall, but ev showed stairway covering was torn, common area lacked lighting, + Thompson had navigated the stairway w/ reasonable care
• court says can’t make groundless conclusions (guesses) BUT jury entitle to draw reasonable inference + verdict must stand if ev justifies “reasonable belief of the probability of the existence of the material facts”

Question 9

Newing v. Cheatham

Answer 9

• 1975
• Cheatham flew private aircraft w/ two passengers -> aircraft found w/ all three dead -> passenger’s estate brought suit, + expert testimony said most likely caused by Cheatham’s failure to supply aircraft w/ sufficient fuel for the flight
• trial court granted directed verdict -> Cali Supreme Court approves this (gives the three elements, + says they’re all so self-evident that there’s res ipsa loquitor as MOL)
• illustrates Cali presumption (vs. NY inference)

Question 10

Ybarra v. Spangard - Facts

Answer 10

• 1944
• pl consulted dr -> diagnosed w/ appendicitis -> surgery -> woke up w/ severe pain in neck and right shoulder, ultimately paralysis in right arm
• drs said cause of injury = trauma from pressure or strain on neck + right arm
• drs involved in the initial surgery tried to say RIL did not apply b/c several defs or instrumentalities involved in injury-producing act + cannot be traced to any one of them

Question 11

Ybarra v. Spangard - Holding

Answer 11

• Cali Supreme Court says not precluded from RIL action just b/c multiple defs + instrumentalities may have been involved in causing the injuries
• number of those in whose care the patient is placed should not be a factor in determining whether he is entitled to all reasonable opportunities to recover for negligence (only matters that pl can show injury resulting from some external force + occurring while he was unconscious at the hospital)

Question 12

Rationale for Res Ipsa Loquitor

Answer 12

• imbalance of info - deals w/ cases where critical knowledge held by def, not pl -> RIL provides way of addressing the info asymmetry + proving negligence, even where key info may not be available
• allows trier of fact to evaluate based on gross probabilities (vs. limited to specific ones) after def heard + all ev weighed
• provides opportunity for pls to recover in cases of harm where there’s a probability of negligence but would never be able to definitively prove it