Res Ipsa Loquitor

Question 0

Airplane crashes

Answer 0

Historically RIL.

Def gets all benefit, all risk on Pltf.

Question 1

Theory of RIL may be invoked when:

Answer 1

1) the event wouldn’t occur absent negligence
2) other possible causes are eliminated by the evidence, including plntf’s conduct and 3rd persons
3) indicated negligence is within scope of the defendants duty to plaintiff

Exclusive control can be sufficient control if joint.

Question 2

Commonalities of RIL &SPL.

Answer 2

Plaintiff in condition of ignorance,not know how it happened.
SPL- def. got all benefit of his danger. activity & all the risk was on plt.
SL-fault doesn’t matter
RIL- def at fault but doesn’t know how(evidence theory) allows jury to draw inference of fault.
S/L=COA, RIL is not

Question 3

Like neg per se in that……

Answer 3

Once u put in juries mind you can’t really get it out

Question 4

Possible COA for cattle on rd

Answer 4

Neg
Neg per se
Neg, RIL

Question 5

Jury inference

Answer 5

Practically shifts burden on def. To prove didn’t

Question 6

Defense tactics

Answer 6

Paint another possible actor to shed doubt on def,

Argue didn’t have exclusive control

Question 7

Common res ipsa

Answer 7

Med mal.
Pltf can’t prove what went wrong,
Can sue only those that were in exclusive/sufficient control

Question 8

Is RIL mandatory?

Answer 8

No is permissive. Ct decides when to give jury instruction as a matter of law

Question 9

How does RIL get erased?

Answer 9

By statute, cuz it’s a common law doctrine.

Question 10

If Pltf can prove neg thru conventional means…….?

Answer 10

then no longer avail for RIL.
At times won’t be until trial til you get rid of it.
Earlier Pltf wins on RIL the better

Question 11

If there is direct evidence of of the cause of injury ?

Answer 11

Then ct will not allow the res ipsa theory.

Question 12

Commonly goes to the evidentiary question of ______?

Answer 12

Breach

Question 13

Dullard v. Berkeley assoc (1979)

uS ct of appeals

Answer 13

Wrongful death construction worker 4x4 timber.
Contracted & sub “shared a common duty” so considered one actor for the exclusive control analysis.
Applies RIL w/out violating exclusive control.

Question 14

Just cuz multiple defendants will RIL fail?

Answer 14

No, joint activity/concerted effort, “shared a common duty”- all one actor for analysis.

Question 15

How to get it in court.

Answer 15

pleaded in complaint, it looks like a COA, but it’s not, will be alternative to conventional negligence. It’s a doctrine of evidence.

Question 17

Difference between RIL & summer v. Tice?

Answer 17

RIL- know someone is responsible

Alternative liabilty- know someone is defin, not responsible

Question 18

impact c/f has Res Ipsa?

Answer 18

should a big guy have been on the top bunk?
if defense shows pltf part negl. then looses RIL cuz pltf has to show all other possible causes are eliminated.
at c/l we wanted only bad actors liable, now willing to prove agnst anyone
or would prove another bad actor, but now can expand cuz of 876 theory.

Question 19

Key procedural impact of RIL?

Answer 19

to preclude a directed verdict, because the inference question must be submitted to the jury!

Question 20

Want case to go to jury……

Answer 20

do a good job showing RIL

Question 21

Conclusions of law are ruled

Answer 21

de novo by appellate courts

Question 22

conclusions of fact

Answer 22

left undisturbed by appellate courts

Question 23

summers v. Tice

Answer 23

quail hunting guys. (*know someone def. NOT responsible, but can’t tell who)
When two defendants not acting together both serve as a proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injuries, both may be held liable for the full extent of the damage and the burden of proof shifts to each defendant to work out a fair apportionment of damages among themselves (not RIL, but know comparisons)