Res Ipsa Loquitur

1
Res Ipsa Loquitur
2
Starting Point the Ordinary Case

• In a routine negligence case
• Plaintiff alleges a specific act of negligence.
• Example D never signaled before turning.
• Example D left his roller blades on the
  sidewalk.
• Plaintiff must persuade jury that her allegation
  is true and that this conduct was negligent.

3
The Case that Needs Res Ipsa.

• A problem arises for P when P doesnt actually
  know what D did carelessly to cause the injury.
• Flour barrel inexplicably falls out of warehouse
  window
• Automobile leaves the highway and hits Penny
  Pedestrian in the back. (too fast? Cell phone?
  Sleepy?)
• assume that investigation cant narrow it down.
• Should courts dismiss because P cant prove
  exactly what D did wrong?

4
Filling the Gap with Circumstantial Evidence

• Courts allow Plaintiffs to proceed anyway if, but
  only if, the evidence suggests that
• The accident would not have happened unless
  someone was negligence
• That someone is probably the Defendant.
• Example Penny Pedestrian
• assume no evidence that D has heart-attack or
  equipment failure.

5
Formal Statement of the Doctrine

• For historical reasons, judicial statements of
  the elements are less simple than mine
• Boyer v. Iowa H.S.A. Assn. (Iowa.1967)239
• Elements in Iowa?
• D has exclusive control of instrumentality
• so probablyD
• Accident would not ordinarily happen if
  reasonable care were used.
• so probably due to negligence

6
Accident would not ordinarily happen if
reasonable care were used?

• Held?
• Basis for this conclusion?
• Yes cockroach in frozen pasta.
• Yes Elevator crashes
• Not P contracts infection in hospital
• Not convulsion and fx from shock therapy
• If needed, expert witness can establish.

7
D has exclusive control of instrumentality?

• Held?
• What about the crowd?
• So how is court rephrasing the exclusive
  control test? (241)
• Practical effect
• P can rule out some people who had or shared
  control narrow down to D.
• RS recos just asking if probably D

8
Third element?

• What third element did D say P had to prove?
• That D had superior access to evidence.
• Example patient having abdominal surgery comes
  out with arm paralysis.
• Held?
• Not essential (majority view)
• Present here

9
Fourth Element?

• Plaintiff did not contribute to the injury.
• Minority of courts require majority says is
  redundant of the exclusive control element
• Boyer? P would prove she was just standing on
  bleachers.

10
Recapping the Elements

• 1. D has exclusive control of instrumentality at
  time of the negligent act
• 2. Accident would not ordinarily happen if
  reasonable care were used.
• 3. D superior access to the evidence
• 4. P did not contribute to the accident
• also causation damages.

11
Whats going on?

• Why dont courts throw these cases out?
• Evidence suggests that
• Someone was negligent (tortious)
• Probably Defendant (right person)

12
Whats going on (contd)

• RILs purpose is to identify cases in which the
  best explanation for the accident is
• negligence by D (same as any negl case)
• (even though P cant point to a specific
  negligent act by D).
• Understood this way, RIL just states the kind of
  circumstantial evidence that P needs when he
  cant identify the specific negligent act.
• Gets P to jury D can rebut. Jury decides.

13
Whats going on (3)?

• Authors say this circumstantial evidence goes to
  the ultimate value judgment in a negligence
  case. How so?
• Contrast
• Circumstantial evid. that D was going 65 mph
• Circumstantial evidence that D was negligent in
  some unknown way
• How do we do r/u? Must be able to assume it.