Res Ipsa Loquitur

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

• Morton Y. Rosenberg v. Pritchard Servs., Inc.
  774 F.2d 293· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 2×
• Levy v. Federated Dep't Stores
  607 F. Supp. 32· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied and the action dismissed as frivolous because her affidavit was facially insufficient and the claims lacked merit.
• LEE v. EL Fenix de Puerto RICO
  739 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply when the likely negligent act occurred outside the defendant's control, and the plaintiff failed to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.
• Barber v. Texaco, Inc.
  720 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the jury's finding of negligence but reversed the finding of gross negligence, holding that while evidence supported a finding of simple negligence, it did not support a finding of conscious indifference required for gross negligence.
• Scronce v. Howard Bros. Disc. Stores, Inc.
  679 F.2d 1204· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of causation for his strict liability and negligence claims.
• Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  672 F.2d 850· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 1980 amendments to the Motor Carrier Act exempt compensated intercorporate hauling (CIH) by transportation-only subsidiaries, but not by non-incorporated entities.
• Lambert v. Midwest City Mem'l Hosp. Auth.
  671 F.2d 372· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that improper comments by defense counsel regarding a plaintiff's settlement with a co-defendant, compounded by a flawed jury instruction, constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.
• Meil v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  658 F.2d 787· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff on claims of negligent design, manufacture, and assembly, as well as crashworthiness defects, and that the jury instructions were proper.
• Sessums v. La. Power & Light Co.
  652 F.2d 579· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to submit a strict liability claim to the jury because Louisiana law does not currently impose strict liability on power companies for accidents involving power lines.
• Collins v. N-Ren Corp.
  604 F.2d 659· 10th Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, entitling him to proceed with the inference of negligence.
• Menke v. The S. Ry. Co.
  603 F.2d 1281· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Indiana Act requiring unobstructed views at railroad crossings is not unconstitutionally vague, and that a railroad can be held liable for defective crossing signals based on constructive knowledge, not just actual knowledge.
• Hydia Troupe v. Evans
  366 So. 2d 139· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-01-11 ·cited 2×
  A patient sued a hospital and physicians for negligence after suffering a herniated disk and paralysis following spinal anesthesia during surgery. The trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital and dismissed the complaint against the physicians after denying a continua
• Bluefield Armature Co. v. R. G. Pope Constr. Co.
  548 F.2d 484· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the burden of proof was correctly placed on the defendant to show defective workmanship, not on the plaintiff to prove the cause of the motor burnouts.
• Marlys J. Udseth v. United States
  530 F.2d 860· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a plaintiff must prove who was piloting the aircraft at the time of a crash to establish negligence, and cannot rely on speculation or conjecture.
• Schnabel v. Mormann
  324 So. 2d 197· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-11-05 ·cited 2×
  Betty Jean Schnabel appealed from a judgment awarding damages to Dorothy Mormann, who suffered severe burns when gasoline leaking from Schnabel's parked automobile ignited in a garage. The appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding t
• Nuclear Corp. OF Am. v. Lang
  480 F.2d 990· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including specific acts of negligence and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, was sufficient to support the finding that the appellant was negligent in allowing his heifer to escape onto the highway.
• Coons v. Wash. Mirror Works, Inc.
  477 F.2d 864· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-02 ·cited 2×
  A party's brief mention of an issue during a colloquy unrelated to jury instructions is insufficient to preserve an objection to the charge for appeal.
• Waite v. Jackson's Byrons Enters., Inc.
  254 So. 2d 28· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-11-02 ·cited 2×
  Louise Waite sued a department store and elevator company after being injured on an escalator. The trial court directed verdicts for both defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to establish the prerequisites for invoking res ipsa loquitur beca
• Bilger v. Mar. Overseas Corp.
  439 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that no specific finding on res ipsa loquitur was required when the district court made express findings on negligence and unseaworthiness, and that denying the belated request to call a witness was not an abuse of discretion.
• Estes, Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  242 So. 2d 474· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-12-30 ·cited 2×
  Estes, Inc. appeals from a directed verdict in favor of Florida Power and Light Co. after plaintiff failed to present evidence of negligence regarding a burned-out electric motor. The court affirms, holding that plaintiff presented no evidence of specific negligence and failed to
• Barboza v. Texaco, Inc.
  434 F.2d 121· 1st Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The jury's finding of negligence was warranted because federal law, governing Jones Act cases, allows for broad inferences by the jury, and the evidence provided a reasonable basis for inferring negligence.
• Raza v. Sullivan
  D.D.C.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant dentist, as the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to infer negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
• Norris v. United States
  423 F.2d 695· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no error in the determination that the appellant's diabetes was not caused by the medical treatment and that no negligence occurred.
• Nat'l Transp. Corp. v. The TUG Abqaiq
  418 F.2d 1241· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the rule of law applied was appropriate.
• Vassiliki Alexandridis v. Jewett
  388 F.2d 829· 1st Cir.· 1968-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a directed verdict for defendants on the negligence count was improper due to sufficient evidence for a jury to consider, and that the jury instruction on contract liability was erroneous by conditioning it on the negligence of a third party.
• Edward v. Knapp and Evelyn Mae Knapp
  375 F.2d 983· 8th Cir.· 1967-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellants failed to establish a submissible case under res ipsa loquitur or general negligence theories, as the opening statement lacked evidence of appellees' control or superior knowledge regarding the instrumentality causing the injury.
• Anne LaMACK v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.
  186 So. 2d 31· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-05-03 ·cited 2×
  Anne LaMack appealed the dismissal of her negligence complaint against Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. after she was allegedly served food containing glass or crockery that injured her. The court held that the complaint stated a valid cause of action for negligence and reversed the dis
• Hinds v. United States
  348 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1965-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the government was not negligent.
• Berry v. Am. Cyanamid Co. (Lederle Labs.
  341 F.2d 14· 6th Cir.· 1965-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Tennessee law requires privity of contract for breach of implied warranty claims in this product liability case, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply if common experience supports the inference of negligence.
• The Fluor Corp. v. Black
  338 F.2d 830· 9th Cir.· 1964-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the general contractor (Fluor) was liable for negligence in failing to provide a safe place to work, but the subcontractor (Graver) was not liable as there was no evidence of its responsibility for the hazardous condition.
• Siegel v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  331 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1964-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings or jury instructions during the negligence trial.
• Samuel Klein t/a Acme Rental Co. v. Aloysius Price
  331 F.2d 800· D.C. Cir.· 1964-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The jury's verdict should not be overturned as it was not unreasonable given the evidence.
• Arrow Drilling Co. v. Brooks
  303 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1962-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury and in rejecting the defendant's affirmative defenses based on a prior Louisiana compensation judgment.
• Wright v. B. F. Huntley Furniture Co.
  299 F.2d 904· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding no primary negligence by the defendant shipper and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
• W. M. & A. Transit Co. v. Radecka
  302 F.2d 921· D.C. Cir.· 1962-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v., nor in admitting rebuttal and expert testimony, and that supplemental jury instructions were not misleading.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Adams
  292 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant railroad failed to conclusively exculpate itself from negligence, and thus the trial court did not err in denying motions for a directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., or a new trial.
• Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Corp.
  286 F.2d 478· 9th Cir.· 1961-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The trial court erred in directing a verdict against the plaintiff because there was substantial evidence of negligent design and manufacture sufficient to go to the jury.
• Harshberger v. Associated Transp., Inc.
  282 F.2d 179· 2d Cir.· 1960-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law to justify submitting the wrongful death case to the jury, and therefore reversed the judgment for the plaintiff.
• Codell-Oman Constr. Co. v. Sorensen
  273 F.2d 703· 5th Cir.· 1960-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that expert testimony stating damage would not occur without negligence was sufficient to allow the jury to find the defendant liable for blasting damage under Alabama law.
• Forest Young v. Willys Motors, Inc.
  271 F.2d 209· 8th Cir.· 1959-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the manufacturer's negligence or a specific defect in the automobile, and thus could not recover for injuries sustained in the accident.
• Otis Elevator Co. v. Yager
  268 F.2d 137· 8th Cir.· 1959-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to entitle the trial court to submit questions of proximate cause, negligence, and contributory negligence to the jury.
• Giguere v. United States Steel Corp.
  262 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1959-03-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's findings of negligence against the defendant were supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for a directed verdict or a new trial.
• Slaughter v. D. C. Transit Sys., Inc.
  261 F.2d 741· D.C. Cir.· 1958-11-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to allow a jury to find the defendant negligent and that the plaintiff's conduct was not a proximate cause of her injury.
• Russell v. Conners Standard Marine Corp. & THE Tug Corporal
  252 F.2d 167· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the government had actual or constructive notice of the buoys' displacement, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable.
• Schweitzer v. Gilmore
  251 F.2d 171· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur or last clear chance, as the evidence did not support these doctrines under Connecticut law.
• Elick D. Tittman v. Great N. Ry. Co.
  252 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1958-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish the railroad's negligence or proximate cause, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FELA claim.
• Bartholomae Corp. v. United States
  253 F.2d 716· 9th Cir.· 1957-08-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of no negligence and no proximate cause were supported by the record, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.
• City OF Maryville v. Farmer
  244 F.2d 456· 6th Cir.· 1957-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury verdicts were not supported by substantial evidence, as the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendants' negligence proximately caused the decedents' deaths.
• Fay Slagle v. United States & Tex. Air Nat'l Guard
  243 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Texas Air National Guard is not a suable entity and lacks jurisdiction, while the United States is not liable under the Tort Claims Act for the crash due to the Guard's exclusive control.
• Standard OIL Co. v. Ogden & Moffett Co.
  242 F.2d 287· 6th Cir.· 1957-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract's indemnity clause requiring division of damages in cases of joint negligence applied, and that Nesbitt remained the carrier's employee, not Standard's loaned employee.