Res Ipsa Loquitur

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

• Krause v. Lucien Andre Chartier
  406 F.2d 898· 1st Cir.· 1968-12-27 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in allowing the jury to consider assumption of risk, as the facts do not support such a defense under Rhode Island law.
• Dunn v. Campbell
  166 So. 2d 217· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-07-01 ·cited 14×
  This is a certiorari petition challenging a trial court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint in a wrongful death medical malpractice action. The court held that while Florida law favors liberal amendments to pleadings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
• S. Ariz. York Refrigeration Co. v. The Bush Mfg. Co.
  331 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could apply to infer negligence in the manufacture of refrigeration coils, and that the 'imminently dangerous' product exception to the privity requirement extends to property damage claims.
• Ursich v. da Rosa
  328 F.2d 794· 9th Cir.· 1964-02-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court properly refused a proposed jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur because it misstated the doctrine and that other instructions given were not prejudicial error.
• Origen C. Hall v. Nat'l Supply Co. & C. J. Overby & W. H. Bland
  270 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1959-09-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on last clear chance and res ipsa loquitur, nor in allowing an amendment to conform pleadings to evidence regarding intoxication.
• Reynolds Metals Co. v. Yturbide
  258 F.2d 321· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-05 ·cited 14×
  The court should not have limited the taking of depositions of Drs. Hills and Proctor in Baltimore.
• Bess Hine v. FOX
  89 So. 2d 13· Fla.· 1956-07-31 ·cited 14×
  A medical malpractice plaintiff appealed a summary judgment in favor of a physician after a cautery instrument broke during treatment, causing burns. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to injuries from defective medic
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Collins
  235 F.2d 805· 4th Cir.· 1956-07-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence of the railroad's negligence to support the jury's verdict, as the plaintiff failed to prove actual or constructive notice of a defective switch.
• Giacalone v. Raytheon Mfg. Co.
  222 F.2d 249· 1st Cir.· 1955-05-06 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury's verdict was properly recorded and that the plaintiff failed to preserve issues regarding jury instructions and the application of res ipsa loquitur.
• Pomeroy v. Pennsylvania Railroad
  223 F.2d 593· D.C. Cir.· 1955-02-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict based on the opening statement, as the possibility of reasonable inference of negligence should be judged after presentation of all offered proof.
• Rosenquist v. Isthmian S. S. Co.
  205 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1953-06-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of negligence against a fellow seaman for dropping a tarpaulin, but sufficient to support a finding of negligence against the mate for assigning an insufficient number of men to the task. The court also held t
• Furr v. Herzmark
  206 F.2d 468· D.C. Cir.· 1953-06-18 ·cited 14×
• Chicago v. McCLANAHAN
  173 F.2d 833· 5th Cir.· 1949-04-15 ·cited 14×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as this is a concurring opinion that agrees with the majority.
• Merritt v. Interstate Transit Lines
  171 F.2d 605· 8th Cir.· 1948-12-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that without the evidence in the record, it could not find the trial court's findings of fact to be clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
• Ethna Hudson
  150 Fla. 523· Fla.· 1942-05-08 ·cited 14×
  Plaintiffs' declaration failed to state a cause of action for joint tortfeasance against a physician and diathermist because it did not allege sufficient facts showing either unity of design and common duty or concurrent negligence that concurred in producing an indivisible injur
• Pitcairn v. Perry
  122 F.2d 881· 8th Cir.· 1941-10-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or rulings regarding evidence.
• Quinn v. Southgate Nelson Corp.
  121 F.2d 190· 2d Cir.· 1941-06-30 ·cited 14×
  A managing agent of a vessel is liable for the negligence of the ship's personnel, even if the vessel owner is also liable.
• Harrell v. Beall's Dep't Store, Inc.
  614 So. 2d 1142· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-02-12 ·cited 13×
  The Harrells sued Beall's Department Store for injuries Edna sustained when an earring display rack fell on her. The trial court directed a verdict for Beall's, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the Harrells presented a prima facie case for jury determination despite
• Morton v. Abbott Labs.
  538 F. Supp. 593· M.D. Fla.· 1982-03-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the defendants' motions for summary judgment should be granted because the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation under traditional theories or novel theories like market share liability.
• Adele Nutt v. James City, Inc.
  162 So. 2d 700· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-03-10 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict for the owner and dismissal of the contractor's cross-claim, finding the owner was not negligent and the contractor's cross-claim was properly dismissed.
• The Rocona v. Guy F. Atkinson Co.
  173 F.2d 661· 9th Cir.· 1949-04-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of negligence were supported by substantial evidence, including circumstantial evidence that outweighed the tug crew's direct testimony.
• Dockswell v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc.
  210 So. 3d 1201· Fla.· 2017-01-26 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the foreign-body presumption of negligence in section 766.102(3)(b) applies mandatorily whenever a foreign body is discovered in a patient's body after a medical procedure, regardless of whether direct evidence of negligence exists. The court r
• Ugaz v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  576 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2008-09-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Montreal Convention applied, precluding recovery because the injury did not result from an 'accident' and, alternatively, that the Plaintiff's negligence claim was barred by the 'open and obvious' nature of the hazard.
• Sherry v. Regency Ins. Co. a/s/f Thomas & Bobbie Riginos & Thomas & Bobbie Riginos
  884 So. 2d 175· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-07-23 ·cited 12×
  Jean Sherry appeals summary judgments entered against her for damages caused by a burst washing machine hose that flooded her condominium unit and the unit below. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding S
• Francis v. Geddes, Jr.
  735 F.2d 1412· D.C. Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Benefits Review Board erred in its burden of proof allocation and claimant's proof requirements, necessitating a remand.
• Wilson v. United States
  645 F.2d 728· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge, acting as factfinder in a Rule 41(b) dismissal, was not required to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
• Hansen v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  578 F.2d 679· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 12×
  A federal district court in a diversity case must instruct the jury on both negligence and strict liability theories in a products liability case if there is sufficient evidence to support negligence, as required by Wisconsin law.
• Brooks v. Plant
  296 So. 2d 71· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-05-31 ·cited 12×
  Billy Joe Brooks, a 15-year-old, fell from the rear of a pickup truck driven by Jay Plant while helping move furniture. Brooks suffered serious head injuries and sued for negligent operation, but the trial court granted summary judgment for defendant due to lack of direct evidenc
• Dowdell v. U. S. Indus., Inc.
  495 F.2d 641· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-30 ·cited 12×
  A jury issue existed regarding the defendant manufacturer's negligence in design, manufacture, or failure to warn, making a directed verdict of dismissal improper.
• Mrs. Amanda Stewart Rabb v. The Canal Barge Co.
  428 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's finding of no negligence or unseaworthiness, and thus affirmed the jury's verdict.
• Joseph T. Ryerson & SON, Inc. v. H. A. Crane & Brother, Inc.
  417 F.2d 1263· 3d Cir.· 1969-10-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur or the duty of an adjoining landowner, and that an unidentified employee's statement was properly admitted as a vicarious admission.
• Calvert v. Katy Taxi, Inc.
  413 F.2d 841· 2d Cir.· 1969-06-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to infer negligence and proximate cause, and thus the trial judge erred in setting aside the jury's verdict.
• Leckbee v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.
  410 F.2d 1191· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury question on proximate cause, despite the trial court's directed verdict.
• Sachanko v. Gill
  388 F.2d 859· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a new trial and that the jury instructions were appropriate given the evidence presented.
• Olsen v. States Line
  378 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and by failing to give a more specific instruction on the duty to supervise.
• Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lukken
  372 F.2d 8· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of negligence to the jury and in refusing to grant a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. for the plaintiff. The court also affirmed the trial court's rulings on jury instructions and witness impeachment.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Muncy
  367 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1966-10-06 ·cited 12×
  A verdict against a defendant based on speculation, where the accident could have multiple causes, cannot stand.
• Jacobs v. Harlem CAB, Inc.
  183 So. 2d 552· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-03-01 ·cited 12×
  Jacobs, an intoxicated taxi passenger, was thrown from a moving cab through a locked rear door while rounding a corner. The trial jury awarded him $6,500, but the trial judge granted the defendant's post-verdict motion for directed verdict. The appellate court reversed, holding t
• Vandercook & SON, Inc. v. Thorpe
  322 F.2d 638· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-19 ·cited 12×
• Fassbinder v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  322 F.2d 859· 3d Cir.· 1963-09-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was improperly applied as it was never raised by the plaintiff in the pleadings or at trial.
• Gafford v. Trans-Texas Airways
  299 F.2d 60· 6th Cir.· 1962-02-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the inference from the defendant's failure to call a witness, as the witness's testimony would have been cumulative.
• Isthmian S.S. Co. v. Cal. Spray-Chemical Corp.
  290 F.2d 486· 9th Cir.· 1961-05-02 ·cited 12×
  The carrier remains responsible for the safe arrival of goods under maritime carriage law, even when using independent contractors for lighterage.
• Furness v. Carter
  281 F.2d 264· 9th Cir.· 1960-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable, and the trial court's finding of negligence based on this inference was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Mrs. Josephine Springfield
  276 F.2d 798· 5th Cir.· 1960-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's judgment was clearly erroneous due to a lack of adequate proof and an inherently incredible theory of causation.
• Eldon C. Odekirk v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  274 F.2d 441· 7th Cir.· 1960-02-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's finding of 100% contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff was supported by ample evidence and that the trial court's jury instructions were not prejudicial.
• Superior Combustion Indus., Inc. v. Schollman Bros. Co.
  271 F.2d 357· 8th Cir.· 1959-11-02 ·cited 12×
  A general jury verdict cannot stand if based on erroneous jury instructions for some of the claims, even if other claims were properly submitted.
• Weigand v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  267 F.2d 281· 3d Cir.· 1959-05-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff is not required to elect between relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and presenting evidence of specific acts of negligence, and that refusing to charge the jury on res ipsa loquitur when the plaintiff attempted to prove both was error.
• Cecille Mosqueda v. Paramount Enters., Inc.
  111 So. 2d 63· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the adequacy of the theater's inspection of its chairs was a question of fact for the jury, not a matter for the court to decide via a directed verdict.
• Ozark v. Wichita Manor
  252 F.2d 671· 5th Cir.· 1958-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as the circumstances of the accident warranted an inference of negligence.
• Franks v. Groendyke Transp., Inc.
  229 F.2d 731· 10th Cir.· 1956-01-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a directed verdict was proper because the plaintiffs failed to establish negligence through direct evidence or by properly applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.