Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Most American courts recognize res ipsa loquitur. The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 328D describes a two-step process for establishing res ipsa loquitur. The first step is whether the accident is the kind usually caused by negligence, and the second is whether or not the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused ...
Ybarra v. Spangard [1] was a leading case in California discussing the exclusive control element of res ipsa loquitur. "Where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of ...
Doherty v Reynolds and St. James's Hospital Board [2004] IESC 42 [1] [2] [3] was a case of medical negligence in which the Supreme Court of Ireland confirmed that, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where an injury would not be expected to occur without negligence in the management of something, negligence on the part of those charged with the thing's management may be presumed from the ...
Res ipsa loquitur requires that the defendant have exclusive control over the thing that causes the injury and that the act be one that would not ordinarily occur without negligence. Likely defendant negligence was responsible and plaintiff was not cause.
Res ipsa loquitur: Latin for "the thing speaks for itself." To prove negligence under this doctrine the plaintiff must prove (1) the incident does not usually happen without negligence, (2) the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the cause. [41]
Traynor also felt that the majority's reasoning approached a rule of strict liability even though the decision was ostensibly based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: In leaving it to the jury to decide whether the inference has been dispelled, regardless of the evidence against it, the negligence rule approaches the rule of strict liability.
The court determined that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") was applicable to this case, meaning that Salgo was able to meet the burden of proof for negligence and that his paralysis was caused by something under the control of the doctors. [8]
Distinguish alternative liability from the smoke-out function of res ipsa loquitur seen in the leading case of Ybarra v. Spangard. In Ybarra, the plaintiff brought all defendants who could have possibly been negligent (breached a duty of reasonable care) so that they could show which party actually was negligent.