9-25-19 Torts Notes - Leiter PDF

Preview

Summary

Leiter...

Description

Austin Scherer Torts Notes III. Negligence C. Proof of Negligence 1. Res Ipsa Loquitur a. Byrne v. Boadle i. Res Ipsa Loquitur, “The thing speaks for itself” 1. “There must be reasonable evidence of negligence; but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defend or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.” ii. Defendant’s Superior Knowledge: The defendant’s superior knowledge, or ability to obtain evidence, as to just what has occurred; or in other words, that the purpose of the rule is to “smoke out” evidence that the defendant has or can get, and the plaintiff cannot b. McDougald v. Perry i. A rule of evidence ii. Essentially the injured plaintiff must establish that the instrumentality causing his or her injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant, and that the accident is one that would not, in the ordinary course of events, have occurred without negligence on the part of the one in control iii. Plaintiff is not required to eliminate with certainty all other possible causes or interferences…Required is evidence from which reasonable persons can say that on the whole it is more likely that there was negligence associated with the cause of the event than that there was not iv. Experts may be needed from given examples in a proof of negligence case 1. Typically seen in medical mishaps, unless fairly obvious to the laymen individual (leaving a sponge in a person’s body) c. Larson v. St. Francis Hotel d. Cruz v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp. i. Car Leaving Highway: There is general agreement that the fact that an automobile leaves the traveled portion of the highway and overturns, or crashes into a stationary object, is enough, in the absence of explanation, to make out a res ipsa loquitur case against the driver ii. Collison between vehicles: neither P nor D can make a res ipsa loquitor case iii. Some cases will apply res ipsa loquitor with a common carrier e. James v. Wormuth i. In health care setting, few courts have shifted the burden of proof to the defendants to prove they were not negligent in the case of an

Austin Scherer Torts Notes III. Negligence C. Proof of Negligence

f.

unconscious patient unable to identify who among the various health care providers had caused an injury Sullivan v. Crabtree i. A commonsense appraisal of the probative value of circumstantial evidence ii. Merely makes a case for the jury-merely permits the jury to choose the inference of defendant’s negligence in preference to other permissible or reasonable inferences...