Res Ispa Loquitur

Question 1

Elements of Res Ispa Liquitur from the reading

Answer 1

1) That there was an accident
2) that the thing or instrumentally which caused the accident was at the time of and prior thereto under exclusive control and management of the defendant and 3) that the accident was such that in the ordinary course of events, the defendant using ordinary care, the accident would not have happened.

Question 2

Elements of Res Ispa Liquitur from the class

Question 3

Negligence per se (breach via breaking a criminal statute) review

Answer 3

a court decides if there conclusive evidence of breach that is determined by breach of the statute

1) the person has to be a member of the class
2) Risk of hazard must be of the kind that the legislature intends to prevent.
3) the statute must be otherwise appropriate to use the criminal statute for evidence of breach of reasonable care.

Question 4

Majority approach

Answer 4

Negligence per se with excuses.

Excuses include those on pg. 257 of the case book

Question 5

Presumption of negligence

Answer 5

The jury decides if it is unreasonable for the party to not comply with the statute.

Question 6

Bryne v. Boadle rule (Res Ispa Loquitur)

Answer 6

“flour barrels don’t just fall from the sky.” Clearly, there must have been negligence.

Question 7

Larson v. St. Francis Hotel

Answer 7

1) An accident is one that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.
2) The instrument used was under the exclusive control of the defendant.

2a) at the time that negligent act if any has happened.
2b) Other responsible causes must be sufficiently eliminated by the evidence.
-
Expert testimony is not required. The common sense of the jury and judge can infer that.

Question 8

Hand’s learned formula

Answer 8

This is not res ispa loquitur.

Question 9

The plaintiff must prove that the thing that caused the accident was under the exclusive control of the defendedan a