Res Ipsa Loquitur

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

• Petition of J. E. Brenneman Co. For Exoneration From or Limitation of Liab. J. E. Brenneman Co.
  322 F.2d 846· 3d Cir.· 1963-08-15
  The court held that claimants who received loan receipts from insurers were the real parties in interest and that the petitioner's failure to maintain an all-night watchman constituted negligence and privity, barring limitation of liability.
• SEA Trade Corp. v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
  305 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1962-06-18
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that Bethlehem was not liable for damages or delays related to the ship's repairs.
• Breece v. J. F. Chapman & SON, Inc.
  302 F.2d 581· 3d Cir.· 1962-04-17
  The court held that the accident was caused by the subcontractor's collateral negligence in using a poorly repaired hose, not by an inherently dangerous activity, thus the general contractor is not liable.
• J. C. Penney Co. v. Eubanks
  294 F.2d 519· 10th Cir.· 1961-07-25
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly applied, establishing negligence in the construction or design of the escalator, despite the absence of negligence in its operation.
• Merrill v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  288 F.2d 218· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-29
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary and procedural rulings during the trial.
• Gertrude Wooten v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  288 F.2d 220· 7th Cir.· 1961-03-20
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to submit the issues of the railroad's negligence, agency, and partnership to the jury, and that the jury instructions were proper.
• Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Hughes
  278 F.2d 324· 6th Cir.· 1960-05-05
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to support the jury's verdict, as the plaintiff failed to prove the freight car door was defective or that the defendant breached its duty of care.
• Kirch v. Armco Steel Corp.
  274 F.2d 120· 8th Cir.· 1960-01-21
  The court held that the plaintiff was a 'statutory employee' under Missouri law, barring his common law negligence claim against the principal employer.
• Reynolds v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  267 F.2d 231· 7th Cir.· 1959-05-25
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's action because the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, could allow a jury to find the defendant negligent in failing to provide a reasonably safe place to work.
• Benton L. Yelverton, Sr. v. Adams
  262 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1959-01-14
• Herring v. Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co.
  253 F.2d 954· 6th Cir.· 1958-04-22
  The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the action because the evidence did not establish the defendant's negligence or create a basis for res ipsa loquitur.
• Larsen v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
  249 F.2d 867· 7th Cir.· 1957-12-06
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff after the jury had returned a verdict for the defendant, and that the decedent was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
• Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Marchant
  249 F.2d 612· 1st Cir.· 1957-11-22
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in submitting the case to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence of negligence and causation.
• Nitzel v. The Austin Co.
  249 F.2d 710· 10th Cir.· 1957-11-05
  The court held that the statute abrogating contributory negligence was inapplicable to a case where the injured party was not an employee of the defendant, and that the jury was properly instructed on contributory negligence and other cautionary matters.
• Weinhart v. ÆTNA Ins. Co.
  249 F.2d 40· 6th Cir.· 1957-10-16
  The appellate court held that the trial court's findings of fact regarding the contractor's negligence were supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous.
• Biaggi v. Giant Food Shopping Ctr.
  244 F.2d 786· D.C. Cir.· 1957-05-16
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply when the plaintiff cannot establish exclusive control by the defendant and the plaintiff's own actions or those of his coworkers could have caused the instrumentality to fall.
• Talbott v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
  243 F.2d 322· 8th Cir.· 1957-04-26
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable because the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant carrier had exclusive control of the instrumentality causing the injury or that the carrier breached a duty owed to the plaintiff.
• Burkett v. Panama City Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
  93 So. 2d 580· Fla.· 1957-03-13
  A plaintiff injured by an exploding Coca-Cola bottle sued the bottler for damages. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the bottle was not subjected to external harmful influences after leaving
• Mrs. Gladys B. White v. Sears
  242 F.2d 821· 4th Cir.· 1957-03-12
  The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to escalator accidents caused by foreign substances, as the store is not in a better position than the plaintiff to know the substance's origin or duration.
• Albin v. Pierce
  232 F.2d 501· 7th Cir.· 1956-05-02
  The court held that the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as the presumption of negligence under res ipsa loquitur was not overcome by the defendant's explanation.
• Bergen v. United States
  222 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1955-06-02
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. de Mayo
  222 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1955-05-13
  The court held that the trial court did not err in charging the jury that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the facts of the case.
• Dickerson v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  212 F.2d 107· 5th Cir.· 1954-04-22
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of negligence regarding the installation and grounding of the telephone wire to warrant submission to a jury.
• Kuchin v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.
  210 F.2d 863· 7th Cir.· 1954-01-12
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer the defendant's negligence, even if the injury was caused by a protruding bleeder rod.
• City of Galveston v. Miranda
  205 F.2d 468· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-26
  The settlement between the City and the libellants, and the subsequent dismissal of the City's appeal as to them, rendered the appeal moot, thus affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the Texas Employers Insurance Association.
• Laughlin v. Loftin
  62 So. 2d 745· Fla.· 1952-12-22
  B & L Trucking Co. v. Loftin involves a dispute over whether a trial court properly reinstated a dismissed case based on a prior Supreme Court decision regarding consolidation of related suits. The Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the case because
• Anton v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  199 F.2d 661· 2d Cir.· 1952-11-07
  The court held that the defendant's points on appeal were not preserved or were supported by evidence, affirming the judgment.
• Fisher v. Minneapolis & ST. L. RY. Co.
  199 F.2d 308· 8th Cir.· 1952-10-21
  The court held that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendants because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable and the evidence showed the decedent's own actions were the proximate cause of his death.
• Willoughby v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  D.D.C.· 1952-07-17
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support claims of negligence or breach of implied warranty regarding a defective soft drink carton.
• Stanolind OIL & GAS Co. v. Giles
  197 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-06
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings of negligence, proximate cause, and damages for the destruction of the plaintiff's water well.
• Foley v. Capone Elec. Co., Inc.
  194 F.2d 605· 2d Cir.· 1952-02-27
• Brooks v. United States
  194 F.2d 185· 4th Cir.· 1952-02-02
  The United States, as owner of premises where an independent contractor's employee was injured, is not liable if the danger was known or should have been known to the contractor, and the owner had no knowledge of the hidden danger.
• Herzinger v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.
  190 F.2d 695· 9th Cir.· 1951-07-12
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury regarding res ipsa loquitur and the burden of proof, nor in admitting expert testimony.
• Gailbreath v. Homestead Fire INS. Co.
  185 F.2d 361· 9th Cir.· 1950-11-17
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable, allowing an inference of negligence from the facts of the fire, and that the evidence supported the finding of negligence in the stove's installation.
• Sutton v. Tex. Co.
  183 F.2d 383· 4th Cir.· 1950-07-26
  The court held that the evidence did not establish the defendant's negligence as the cause of the plaintiff's injury.
• Nichols v. Skelly Oil Co.
  175 F.2d 113· 8th Cir.· 1949-06-13
  A consignee is not liable for injuries to its agent caused by defects in a tank car furnished by a third party, where the consignee's only use of the car was to unload it.
• Remer v. Flying Eagle Whiteway Lines, Inc.
  172 F.2d 831· 2d Cir.· 1949-02-21
  The court held that the bus company could not complain of the directed verdict for the tire manufacturer, as it had the benefit of a favorable jury charge and the exclusion of the inspection certificate was not error.
• San Diego GAS & Elec. Co. v. United States
  173 F.2d 92· 9th Cir.· 1949-02-14
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could support an inference of proximate cause for the damage.
• Callan v. Cope
  165 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1948-01-23
  The court held that Callan is entitled to maintenance and cure despite his disobedience, as his injuries did not arise from his own gross and willful misconduct. The court affirmed the dismissal as to Cope.
• Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Harrison Cnty.
  153 F.2d 671· 5th Cir.· 1946-02-21
  The court held that the Contractor was liable for damages to the barges due to negligence, but the County and its surety were not liable because the underlying contract for the barges was void. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the County and surety but reversed
• Fleming v. Brown
  150 F.2d 801· 8th Cir.· 1945-07-30
  The court held that the railroad had a duty to exercise reasonable care towards the public on its station grounds, and the derailment itself was sufficient evidence to support a finding of negligence.
• Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Lamberson
  144 F.2d 97· 9th Cir.· 1944-06-30
  A storekeeper is not liable for injuries from a dangerous condition on the premises unless the condition was known or should have been known to the storekeeper.
• Westinghouse Elec. Elevator Co. v. Hatcher
  133 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1943-02-02
  The court held that there was substantial evidence from which a jury could conclude that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries, despite the defendant's arguments regarding the contract, independent contractor status, and evidence sufficiency.
• Chandler v. Katz Drug Co.
  130 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1942-10-28
  The plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act, precluding her from maintaining a personal injury action against the defendant.
• Brooks v. Hill-Shaw Co.
  117 F.2d 682· 7th Cir.· 1941-01-02
  The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable to the facts presented, as the coffee maker was not under the exclusive control of the manufacturer at the time of the accident. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove negligence.