Res Ipsa Loquitur

800 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Donaldo C. Smith v. Reitman
  389 F.2d 303· D.C. Cir.· 1967-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of negligence to establish a malpractice claim, even considering the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
• Osee F. Williams and Charles G. Williams v. Orange Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.
  202 So. 2d 859· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in granting a directed verdict for the defendant hospital, as the evidence presented a jury question on negligence and breach of contract.
• Zink v. Radewald
  369 F.2d 253· 7th Cir.· 1966-06-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer negligence from the circumstances of the rear-end collision.
• Cent. Stikstof Verkoopkanter, N.V. v. Pensacola Port Auth.
  316 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege a causal connection between the alleged captive fires and the fire in suit.
• AETNA Ins. Co. v. Neville G. Penrose, Inc.
  304 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in striking the contract claim, which requires further factual determination, but correctly dismissed the negligence and implied warranty claims due to insufficient evidence.
• Lind v. Am. Trading & Prod. Corp.
  294 F.2d 342· 9th Cir.· 1961-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding negligence and unseaworthiness, affirming the judgment.
• Martin v. E. I. duPONT DE Nemours & Co., Inc.
  281 F.2d 801· 3d Cir.· 1960-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding the defendant's negligence in securing a drum lid, and that newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial.
• Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States
  276 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1960-02-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not impose absolute liability and does not make the United States an insurer against the failure of a light it maintained.
• Panama Canal Co. v. Sociedad de Transportes Maritimos, S.A.
  272 F.2d 726· 5th Cir.· 1959-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the negligent acts of the pilot and tug-master, employees of the Panama Canal Company, were the proximate cause of the accident, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable.
• Wallace v. Knapp-Monarch Co.
  234 F.2d 853· 8th Cir.· 1956-06-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict for the defendant manufacturer, nor in denying the plaintiff's late request to amend the complaint to add a local defendant, as res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable and the amendment would destroy divers
• RAY v. United States
  228 F.2d 574· 5th Cir.· 1955-12-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the United States was not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained from an electrical explosion, as the plaintiff failed to prove actionable negligence by the government or its contractors.
• Martin v. United States
  225 F.2d 945· D.C. Cir.· 1955-06-30 ·cited 6×
• H. L. Green Co., Inc. v. Bowen
  223 F.2d 523· 4th Cir.· 1955-06-13 ·cited 6×
  A storekeeper is not liable for customer injuries caused by a condition on the floor unless the storekeeper had actual or constructive notice of the condition.
• S. Pine Extracts Co. v. Bailey
  75 So. 2d 774· Fla.· 1954-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for an independent contractor who lost an eye from defective dynamite sold by Southern Pine Extracts. The court held that when a seller of a known dangerous commodity provides special instructions for its use, an implied condition
• Montgomery-Ward & Co., Inc. v. Sewell
  205 F.2d 463· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiffs was not supported by sufficient evidence and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was improperly applied.
• Smith v. Acadia Overseas Freighters
  202 F.2d 141· 3d Cir.· 1953-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to support the lower court's findings and that a new trial was necessary to properly develop the evidence and make consistent findings.
• Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v. FIX
  200 F.2d 529· 8th Cir.· 1952-12-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to give a requested jury instruction regarding the conclusive effect of the safety valve working properly after installation, and therefore reversed the judgment.
• Cap. Transit Co. v. Howard
  196 F.2d 593· D.C. Cir.· 1952-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the negligence issue to the jury and in giving a supplementary charge to a deadlocked jury.
• White v. United States
  193 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1951-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of no proof of negligence was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed the judgment for the United States.
• Ayers v. Parry
  192 F.2d 181· 3d Cir.· 1951-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice because expert testimony was required to prove negligence, and the plaintiff's expert testimony did not establish negligence as the cause of injury.
• Schnee v. S. Pac. Co.
  186 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1951-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the accident was caused by the defendant's negligence, potentially applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
• E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Cudd
  176 F.2d 855· 10th Cir.· 1949-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the case on general negligence and should have directed a verdict for the defendant, as there was no evidence of negligence and the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicable.
• May Dep't Stores Co. v. Reynolds
  140 F.2d 799· 8th Cir.· 1944-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence presented at the second trial did not sufficiently differ from the first trial to warrant overturning the jury's verdict, and the trial court's instructions were proper.
• Omaha Packing Co. v. Pittsburgh
  120 F.2d 594· 7th Cir.· 1941-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding city ordinances and directing a verdict for the defendants on counts based on them, nor in excluding testimony regarding the character of riverbank properties. The court also held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
• Boston & M. R. R. v. United States
  117 F.2d 428· 1st Cir.· 1941-02-04 ·cited 6×
  A railroad is liable for a penalty under the Cruelty to Animals Act if its employees' negligence causes a delay that results in animals exceeding the statutory confinement period, even if an initial unavoidable delay occurred.
• S. Utils. Co. v. Murdock
  99 Fla. 1086· Fla.· 1930-05-14 ·cited 6×
  Southern Utilities Company appealed a jury verdict awarding Murdock $5,000 for injuries sustained when he came into contact with a fallen, electrically charged wire on his property. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of negl
• Key Custom Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
  450 F. Supp. 2d 1311· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-24 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Commercial General Liability Policy did not cover the insured's losses because the claims were for economic damages arising from breach of contract, not 'property damage' as defined by the policy.
• Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Lenz
  669 So. 2d 271· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-01-19 ·cited 5×
  Anheuser-Busch appealed a jury verdict finding it 70% negligent for an exploding beer bottle that injured an employee, even though the jury also found the bottle had no defect when placed on the market. The court reversed, holding that the jury's inconsistent findings—finding neg
• McDONALD v. Med. Imaging Ctr. OF Boca Raton
  662 So. 2d 733· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-11-01 ·cited 5×
  In this medical malpractice case, an 85-year-old stroke victim fell off an x-ray table when the attending technologist turned away to call for assistance, fracturing her hip and pelvis. The plaintiff appealed an adverse jury verdict, arguing she was entitled to a res ipsa loquitu
• Szilagyi v. N. Fla. Hotel Corp.
  610 So. 2d 1319· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-22 ·cited 5×
  The Szilagyis appealed a judgment in favor of a hotel and elevator company after Mr. Szilagyi was injured when an elevator suddenly stopped between floors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that despite the applicability of negligence per se doctrin
• Akiona v. United States
  938 F.2d 158· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying res ipsa loquitur and shifting the burden of proof, thus reversing the finding of liability.
• Terrell McCoy Creekmore and wife v. United States
  905 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without making a clear factual finding that the defendants jointly controlled the instrumentality causing the injury.
• Trigg v. City & Cnty. OF Denver & Winter Park Rec. Ass'n
  784 F.2d 1058· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to give a negligence-per-se jury instruction, as there was sufficient evidence of statutory violations by the ski lift operator.
• Globe Seaways, Inc. v. Panama Canal Co.
  509 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that 2 Canal Zone Code § 291 imposes strict liability on the Panama Canal Company for damages occurring during passage through the locks, regardless of negligence.
• La. & Ark. Ry. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  380 F.2d 541· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court's finding of no negligence by either the truck driver or the train operators was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the dismissal of the suit.
• Zabawczuk v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp.
  168 So. 2d 150· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-10-23 ·cited 5×
  In this consolidated appeal of a personal injury case, the court addresses whether a defendant can appeal a trial court's order granting a new trial limited to damages when that order vacates prior judgments on liability. The court holds that the order granting a new trial on dam
• United States v. Ridolfi
  318 F.2d 467· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was improperly applied because the plaintiff failed to establish that the injury was probably caused by the defendant's negligence, as the accident occurred during an unanticipatable seizure.
• Verda Ross Whalen v. Phoenix Indem. Co.
  222 F.2d 121· 5th Cir.· 1955-05-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that under Louisiana law, a store owner can be liable for injuries resulting from a general practice of customers leaving rugs out of racks, even without specific notice of the condition, if the owner knew of the practice and failed to implement a systematic remedy
• Cie. Des Messageries Maritimes v. Tawes
  205 F.2d 5· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not convert the general issue into an affirmative defense and does not supply a want of proof; the facts here did not warrant an inference of negligence.
• Valenty v. Saraiva
  292 So. 3d 50· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's order granting a new trial. The trial court had found the jury's verdict for the defendant to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, believing the defendant's fault was undisputed. The appellate court found this reasoning unsu
• Dockswell v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc.
  177 So. 3d 270· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-09-16 ·cited 4×
  The Dockswells appealed a jury verdict in favor of Bethesda Memorial Hospital in a medical negligence case involving a retained surgical drain fragment. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a jury instruction on foreign bodies that would have created a presumption of ne
• Perry v. McDOUGALD
  698 So. 2d 1256· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-07-30 ·cited 4×
  Perry and C & S Chemicals appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury case where McDougald was struck by a dislodged spare tire from their tractor-trailer. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict motion because McDougald fai
• Monforti v. K-Mart, Inc.
  690 So. 2d 631· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-03-03 ·cited 4×
  A trial court properly denies a res ipsa loquitur instruction when the plaintiff presents direct expert evidence of negligence and the instrumentality causing injury is not exclusively within the defendant's control. Where a merchandise shelf is reachable by customers and expert
• Magic Oriental Rugs, Inc. v. Komorowski
  618 So. 2d 322· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-05-11 ·cited 4×
• Rodi Yachts v. Nat'l Marine
  984 F.2d 880· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were insufficient to determine the relative fault of the parties, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• McMATH v. City OF Gary
  976 F.2d 1026· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's complaint adequately alleged a violation of a liberty interest to survive a motion to dismiss, there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to link the defendants to the public dissemination of stigmatizing statements about the plai
• Tait v. Armor Elevator Co.
  958 F.2d 563· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding Armor's duty of care were proper under Pennsylvania law, and that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict for Prudential because a jury could find Prudential retained sufficient control over the elevators to be h
• Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Mays Towing Co., Inc.
  927 F.2d 1453· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-21 ·cited 4×
  The court should affirm the district court's order because the majority failed to conclude the district court's findings were clearly erroneous or that Lone Star's negligence was a superseding cause as a matter of law.
• Ind. Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  916 F.2d 1174· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the transportation of acrylonitrile by rail through a populated area is not an abnormally dangerous activity for which the shipper is strictly liable under Illinois law.
• Campbell v. United States
  904 F.2d 1188· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove either that the surgeon deviated from the standard of care or that the alleged deviation proximately caused the patient's stroke.