Flashcards in Page 17 Deck (41):
What does Res Ipsa Loquitur mean?
The Thing speaks for itself
Res Ipsa Loquitur allows the jury to do what?
Infer negligence when circumstances show the injury was more likely than not caused by defendant's negligence
Essentially for Res Ipsa Loquitur, the occurrence of an accident implies what?
Res Ipsa Loquitur is often applied to what kind of cases?
Slip And fall cases
What are the two views for Res Ipsa Loquitur?
- majority view: plaintiff must show defendant failed to meet applicable standard of care
- minority view: shifts the burden to defendant, and he must show sufficient evidence to support that he wasn't negligent
What are the elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur?
- probably negligence
- probably defendant
- plaintiff was not responsible for the injury
- negligence was within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff
If all of the elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur can be proven, what is the effect?
The defendant can establish his case through circumstantial evidence
Why is it often the wrong answer if the pick says, "plaintiff prevails under Res Ipsa Loquitur"?
Because Res Ipsa Loquitur only establishes the prima facie case, the jury can still find defendant not liable and plaintiff doesn't necessarily prevail
What is the probably negligence element of Res Ipsa Loquitur?
Event usually doesn't happen if negligence isn't present
Does it have to be shown at negligence was the only cause for an R I L case?
No, just that it was a likely cause
Examples of the probably negligence element of RIL?
Rodents cooked in food, Dr. leaving something in a patient during surgery
Who Makes the decision about whether or not there was likely negligence in an R I L case?
The jury, and expert testimony is allowed
Why is finding glass in your canned spinach considered R I L?
Because that doesn't happen unless someone was negligent
What is the probably defendant element of RIL?
Plaintiff must prove that other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence, and the plaintiff ties the unreasonable conduct to the defendant (D is probably the responsible party)
What Are the two ways that the probably defendant element of RIL is proven?
- Traditionally: by showing defendant had exclusive control over the item
- Modernly: by showing defendant was more likely than not responsible for the negligent event
What must Be proven for the "plaintiff was not responsible for the injury" element of RIL?
P shows he didn't set in motion the forces that resulted in his injury, but if he put himself in a position of peril or didn't take precautions that doesn't matter
In layman's terms what has to be proven for an R I L case?
P must show the harm causing event was probably due to negligence, the defendant was probably the culpable party, and plaintiff must convince the jury that each of these factors more likely than not exist
Who Has the burden of proof in an R I L case?
The plaintiff, but once the presumption of negligence has been applied, the defendant has the burden of showing he wasn't negligent, or the judge will direct a verdict for the plaintiff
What happened in the Ybarra case?
If shoulder was hurt while having a different surgery, so he Sudol medical personnel that might've been responsible. Court made everyone explain their conduct
How does the Ybarra case relate to our RIL?
If The plaintiff gets an usual injury while unconscious during the course of medical treatment, all the defendants that had any control over his body or the instruments that might've caused his injuries can be called on to prove the inference of negligence by giving an explanation of the conduct
What are the two ways that a plaintiff can establish negligence?
1. Direct evidence
2. Circumstantial evidence
How do you establish negligence through direct evidence?
Eyewitness testimony/video tape where personal knowledge or observation is available
How does circumstantial evidence prove negligence?
Can require the drawing of an inference from other facts
What is an example of circumstantial evidence that proves negligence?
Skid marks on the road can allow an inference that defendant was moving quickly
When would circumstantial evidence be too weak to be admitted?
If it requires speculation instead of reasonable inference
If you slip and fall on a banana, and you show that the peel was gritty and black, would that be enough to prove negligence?
It would allow a reasonable inference that it had been there a long time
Who All has responsibility under the category of land owner?
Occupiers, possessors, owners, even adverse possessors
How do you determine a land occupier's duty to people injured on their land?
By looking at status, location, and relationship
What duty does a landlord owe to his tenant?
Owes a duty to both tenants and guests for defects in common areas, negligent repairs, undisclosed dangerous conditions known to him, etc.
What are considered common areas that a landlord has a duty for?
Lobbies, hallways, common staircases
If a landlord chooses to make repairs, what is he liable for?
Those foreseeably injured from his negligent repairs
When can a landlord over duty to protect tenants from third person attacks in common areas?
If he had noticed that the tenants were being subjected to crimes
Landlords have a duty to keep the premises in a way that doesn't increase what?
The risk to the tenants
How do landlords fulfill their duty to keep the premises in a way that doesn't increase the risk to their tenants?
Keeping security measures in place, replacing lights, fixing broken locks, etc.
Tenants are possessors of what part of the land?
Portion that is leased to them
What are the two major duties of a landlord?
- Protect tenants and visitors from criminal attacks
- Address defects in the leased property
If there was an obvious defect that was reasonably apparent on the transfer of the land, is there a duty to warn or repair it?
If a defect is latent and not apparent, what is the duty that a landlord owes to the tenant?
A duty to warn if the defendant wasn't aware and the landlord knew or should have known
What is a lease?
Conveyance of land that makes the lessee the owner for a period of the lease, and the lessor has no more responsibility to upkeep the land (except in certain situations)
What are the three situations that a landlord still owes a duty to the lessee of his land?
- The portions of the land he retains control of
- his conduct in creating risks to others
- disclosing dangerous conditions