Torts - Res Ipsa Loquitor Flashcards
(4 cards)
Which of the following is NOT a prerequisite for the plaintiff to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
A The plaintiff was injured.
B The defendant had actual possession of the instrumentality causing the injury.
C There is evidence connecting the defendant with the negligence.
D The accident causing the injury is the type that would not normally occur unless someone was negligent.
B The defendant had actual possession of the instrumentality causing the injury.
It is not necessary for application of res ipsa loquitur to show that the defendant had actual possession of the instrumentality causing the injury, even though this may be one way to connect the defendant with the negligence that occurred.
The circumstantial evidence doctrine of res ipsa loquitur deals with those situations where the plaintiff was injured and the fact that a particular injury occurred may itself establish or tend to establish a breach of duty owed.
Res ipsa loquitur requires that the accident is of a type that normally does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence and the evidence connects the defendant to the negligence (in other words, this type of accident ordinarily happens because of the negligence of someone in the defendant’s position).
What is one of the effects of res ipsa loquitur?
A It requires the defendant to present evidence of due care in rebuttal.
B The burden of proof switches to the defendant.
C No directed verdict may be given for the defendant.
D It creates a presumption of negligence.
C No directed verdict may be given for the defendant.
One of the effects of res ipsa loquitur is that no directed verdict may be given for the defendant, because when the res ipsa element has been proved, the plaintiff has made a prima facie case for negligence. The doctrine, however, does NOT switch the burden of proof to the defendant and does NOT create a presumption of negligence. Furthermore, it does NOT require the defendant to present evidence of due care in rebuttal. If the jury elects not to infer negligence, it may find for the defendant even if the defendant presents no evidence on that issue.
A bottler markets water in lightweight plastic bottles that are sold by grocery stores, sporting goods stores, and other retail outlets. A hiker purchased several bottles of the water from a retailer and took them with him on a hike. While the hiker left his backpack unattended, a thief took one of the unopened containers without permission and drank some of the water. He immediately became violently ill. Tests were run on the water and showed that it contained impurities.
If the thief maintains a negligence action against the bottler, which of the following arguments would be the most helpful to the bottler in avoiding liability?
A The retailer had ample opportunity to test and inspect samples of the bottled water for purity and failed to do so.
B The bottler bottled its water in compliance with numerous statutes that regulate the process of bottling water for human consumption.
C The thief has failed to introduce any evidence at trial as to how the impurities got into the water he drank, and therefore has not met his burden of proof.
D No reasonable person would have foreseen that the water would have been stolen and consumed by a thief.
B The bottler bottled its water in compliance with numerous statutes that regulate the process of bottling water for human consumption.
Evidence that the bottler complied with applicable statutes will be admissible to show that the bottler acted with ordinary, reasonable care, and is the only one of the listed arguments that would be helpful to the bottler. The bottler is being sued on a negligence theory; thus, the thief must prove that the bottler failed to exercise ordinary, reasonable care in bottling and distributing the water. Violation of a statute will establish a conclusive presumption of duty and breach of duty. However, compliance with an applicable statute does not necessarily establish due care, because due care may require more than is called for by the statute. Nevertheless, compliance with a statute is admissible as evidence that a defendant may have acted with due care. Thus, the bottler could use its compliance with the water bottling statutes as a means of establishing that it conformed with its duty to use ordinary, reasonable care. (A) is incorrect because a products liability action based on negligence uses the same causation analysis as a standard negligence case. Thus, a defendant’s liability is not cut off by a foreseeable intervening force that comes into motion after the defendant’s original negligent act. Consequently, an intermediary’s negligent failure to discover a defect is not a superseding cause, and the defendant whose original negligence created the defect will be held liable along with the intermediary. Hence, the retailer’s possibly negligent failure to inspect the water for purity will not relieve the bottler of liability for the consequences of its own negligence, if any. (C) will not be helpful to the bottler because this question allows for use of res ipsa loquitur. Under this doctrine, if a plaintiff shows that his injury is of a type that would not normally occur in the absence of negligence, and that such negligence is attributable to the defendant (e.g., by showing that the instrumentality causing the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant), the trier of fact is permitted to infer the defendant’s negligence. Here, impurities would not normally get into the bottled water in the absence of negligence, and the fact that the container from which the thief drank was unopened allows the trier of fact to infer that the impurity entered the water due to negligence on the part of the bottler. Therefore, the thief is not required to introduce evidence as to how the impurity got into the water in order to prevail. (D) is incorrect because the bottler’s duty of due care in the context of products liability arises from having placed the water into the stream of commerce. Having done so, the bottler owes a duty to any foreseeable plaintiff, whether such person be an actual purchaser of the water or merely a user thereof. With the placing of the water into the stream of commerce, the thief is a foreseeable plaintiff as a drinker of the water, regardless of the fact that he obtained the water by means of theft.
A fire broke out in a home that had been recently remodeled, destroying the house and injuring the homeowner. An investigation by the fire marshal established that the fire started from a short in some wiring behind a wall. A small section of wiring that ran to an outlet through a narrow gap between a furnace chimney and a hot water pipe had part of its outer sheath cut off. The homeowner filed suit against the electrical company that did the rough wiring.
The parties stipulated for trial that the company had installed the wiring in compliance with the blueprints, and that the wiring had been inspected and approved by the building inspector before the chimney and the water pipe had been installed and the walls put up, all by different contractors. At trial, the homeowner introduced the report of the fire marshal establishing how the fire started, and evidence of his medical expenses and other damages. At the end of the homeowner’s case, the electrical company’s attorney rested her case and moved for a directed verdict. The homeowner’s attorney also moved for a directed verdict.
How should the court rule on the directed verdict motions?
A Deny the electrical company’s motion and grant the homeowner’s motion for a directed verdict, because a short in the wiring caused the homeowner’s injuries.
B Deny the electrical company’s motion and grant the homeowner’s motion for a directed verdict, because the company failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that the homeowner has established.
C Deny the homeowner’s motion and grant the electrical company’s motion for a directed verdict, because the wire could have been damaged by another contractor.
D Deny both directed verdict motions, because the homeowner has presented enough evidence to submit the case to the jury.
C Deny the homeowner’s motion and grant the electrical company’s motion for a directed verdict, because the wire could have been damaged by another contractor.
The court should grant the electrical company’s motion for a directed verdict because the homeowner has not established a prima facie case of negligence on the company’s part. The homeowner has established that the electrical company owed a duty to him and that he has suffered harm from the fire caused by the short in the wiring. However, he has not established that the company breached any duty to him. While breach of duty is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact, a plaintiff’s failure to offer any evidence on that element of the prima facie case will permit a directed verdict for the defendant. Under certain circumstances, the fact that a particular injury occurred may itself establish or tend to establish a breach of duty owed, permitting the trier of fact to infer the defendant’s liability. This is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”). However, for the doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must show that the accident causing his injury is the type that would not normally occur unless someone was negligent and the negligence was attributable to the defendant. The second requirement can often be satisfied by showing that the instrumentality causing the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant. Here, however, the wiring was exposed to work done by other contractors in installing a chimney and a hot water pipe nearby and putting up the walls, and the homeowner has offered no evidence that the cut in the outer sheath of the wiring was present when the electrical company finished its work. Instead, the fact that the wiring had been approved by the building inspector suggests that the wiring was intact when the electrical company finished. Given these facts, the homeowner has not presented evidence that the negligence was attributable to the defendant. Since res ipsa loquitur does not apply and no other evidence of breach of duty was established, the electrical company’s motion for a directed verdict should be granted. (C) is therefore correct, and (B) and (D) are incorrect. (B) is also incorrect because the homeowner’s motion for a directed verdict would be denied even if he had established res ipsa loquitur. Establishing res ipsa loquitur merely creates a permissible inference of negligence; it does not create a presumption of negligence. Where the res ipsa loquitur element has been proved, the plaintiff has established a prima facie breach of duty on the defendant’s part and no directed verdict may be given for the defendant. However, it does not require the defendant to present evidence to rebut a presumption. The trier of fact is free to accept the inference of negligence that has been created and find for the plaintiff or reject the inference of negligence and find for the defendant, even if the defendant offers no other evidence on the issue. Thus, the court would not grant the homeowner’s motion for a directed verdict even if he had established res ipsa loquitur. (A) is incorrect because the electrical company is not strictly liable for the short in the wiring. The homeowner’s failure to offer some evidence of negligence on the part of the electrical company will allow the electrical company to prevail.
