Larson v. St. Francis Hotel
Facts: Plaintiff was walking on a sidewalk near )'s hotel and was struck on the head by a falling armchair which is assumed to have been thrown out of the hotel. There is no actual proof, but it is the only logical place for the chair to have come from. Issue: Can the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur be applied to a case that involves an injury resulting from a chair being thrown out of a hotel window and subsequently injuring a person on the street below? Holding: NO Reasoning: * you must have ALL of the following elements for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply: 1. An accident 2. The item that causes the accident must have been under EXCLUSIVE control and management of the owner until directly prior to the accident 3. Accident was of a nature that it would not have happened in the ordinary cause of events if the defendant was using reasonable care. *furniture in a hotel room is NOT under the exclusive control and management of the owner... it is partially under the control and management of whoever is staying in the room at the time. The doctrine cannot be used in this case. Rule of Law: in order to utilize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, one must show that all of the elements of the doctrine are present.
Ybarra v Spangard
Relevant Facts: Pl consulted Df who diagnosed his ailment as appendicitits and made perparations for surgery. Pl entered the hospital was given a hypodermic slept, and was later awakened. He was wheeled into the operating room where he was adjusted by his body being pulled to the head of the table. His back was laid against two hard objects at the top of his shoulders, about an inch from his neck. Prior to the operation he never had any pain in his arm or shoulder, but when he awoke he felt a sharp pain in his neck near the shoulder. He was unable to rotate or lift his arm. Legal Issue(s): Whether, when a PL receives unusual injuries while unconscious during medical treatment, all Df and instrumentalities who had control over his body might have caused his injuries are liable for prima facie negligence? Court’s Holding: yes
Procedure: Nonsuit dismissing Pl action, Pl appeals. Reversed. Law or Rule(s): The thing speaks for itself. Proof that the instrument causing the injury was under the exclusive control of the df and the injury does not ordinarily happen unless negligent. All persons and instrumentalities exercising control over a person are liable for any unnecessary harm that results. Court Rationale: Every Df who had control over the Pl’s body for any period was bound to exercise ordinary care to see that no unnecessary harm came to him, and each would be liable for failure in this regard. The injury was distinctly a part of his body not subject for treatment, nor within the area covered by the operation. Unless the Drs and nurses in attendance voluntarily chose to disclose the identity of the negligent person liability would be impossible to determine, and absolute liability would be the result, irrespective of negligence. Plaintiff’s Argument: The area around the operation was not near the injury, while unconscious PL should have received reasonable care to insure he did not receive unnecessary harm. Defendant’s Argument: Assuming PL condition was in fact the result of an injury, there is no showing that the act of any particular Df , or instrumentality was the cause. Non suit - failure to prove a case.
Sullivan v. Crabtree Proof of Negligence Facts: Plaintif sues damages for death of adult son, who was killed while a guest (riding) in a truck. The truck went off the highway and over a steep embankment. The road was a paved, first class road, and it was daytime and no ice/snow/precipitation on the road. The case against the driver of the truck went to trial, and the verdict was a judgement in driver's favor. A appeals in error. Issue: Given that conflicting inferences could be drawn form the evidence of this case, was it for the jury to choose the inference as they deemed most appropriate, thereby making it appropriate to say there was evidence to support the jury finding for the defendant? Holding: yes
Reasoning: The truck reck could be due to (1) drivers negligence or (2) no fault of his own, thought an unavoidable accident cased by the breaks failing or some other mechanism in the trick failing to work properly. Since both inferences are possible from the information in this case, it is proper that a jury should decide the issue of negligence. Rule of Law: res ipsa loquitur merely makes a case for the jury. Jury chooses the inferences to be made from the facts, and jury decides the )'s negligence.