01080acd-69de-4da1-a6d5-f7eee985ea90.doc Page 232 McDougald v. Perry, Supreme Court of FL, 1998 Was P required to prove to show that accident would not occur without negligence by D? Issue Does Res Ipsa Loquiur apply to facts of this case? Reasoning In rare instances an injury coupled may permit an inference of negligence if coupled with sufficient showing of its immediate, precipitating cause. Rule Res ipsa Loquitur – P must establish o o Facts P was injured when a 130lbs spare tire … (Instrumentality causing injury Was under exclusive control of D), AND 2nd district said that: “P failed to prove that this accident would not, in the ordinary course of event, have occurred without the negligence by D” – P was required to show sufficient evidence beyond the accident itself that accident would not have occurred but for D’s breach of due care. Conclusion: on the basis of common experience and as a matter of general knowledge a tire falling off would not occur but for the failure to exercise of reasonable care by the person in control o (Accident would not ordinarily happen …from a leased tractor trailor operated by D flew from under the trailor and hit P’s windshield. D testified that as originally designed, the chain that secured the tire is secured to the body with a latch device, but at the time of the accident, the it was attached with a nut and bolt. D did a pre-trip inspection of the truck and inspected the chain but not every link. After the accident, he noticed that the chain was dragging. o Without negligence on part of party in control – D) Held Procedure P argues D argues Remanded with direction to re-instate trial court’s judgment. P sued for negligence. Trial court found for P. District court of appeals reversed – jury instructions were wrong – not res ipsa loquitur. P appealed. No expert of other testimony that shows tire exit onto roadway would not ordinarily occur in the absence of regligence.