Res Ipsa Loquitur

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

• Loketch v. Cap. Transit Co.
  248 F.2d 609· D.C. Cir.· 1957-07-03 ·cited 8×
  A directed verdict for a common carrier is improper if the evidence, even if presented by the plaintiff, does not conclusively negate the carrier's negligence, leaving questions for the jury.
• Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. OF Minn. & Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. C. A. Snyder, Inc.
  242 F.2d 64· 3d Cir.· 1957-02-25 ·cited 8×
  A lease provision excepting "accident by fire alone" from a lessee's liability for damages can include fires caused by the lessee's negligence, as the popular meaning of "accident" encompasses negligence.
• Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Rowe
  226 F.2d 365· 8th Cir.· 1955-10-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, the trial court did not err in submitting the case on res ipsa loquitur, admitting the defendant's letter, or instructing the jury on damages.
• ORR v. S. Pac. Co.
  226 F.2d 841· 9th Cir.· 1955-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact, including that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his fall and that the defendant was not negligent, were supported by the evidence and justified the judgment.
• Collene W. McCALL v. Overseas Tankship Corp.
  222 F.2d 441· 2d Cir.· 1955-05-10 ·cited 8×
• Worsham v. Duke
  220 F.2d 506· 6th Cir.· 1955-03-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants because the plaintiff's testimony, despite its lack of detail, did not establish an intervening cause and the circumstances warranted application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
• Verda Ross Whalen v. Phoenix Indem. Co.
  220 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1955-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, reversing the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Reisinger
  68 So. 2d 589· Fla.· 1953-12-11 ·cited 8×
  A customer was injured by an exploding Coca-Cola bottle at a self-service supermarket and sued the bottler under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment for plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff failed to affirmatively prove the bottle was
• Safeway Stores, Inc. v. West
  180 F.2d 25· D.C. Cir.· 1950-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly applied to the facts of the case, and the jury instructions were appropriate.
• Trouser Corp. of Am. v. Goodman & Theise, Inc.
  153 F.2d 284· 3d Cir.· 1946-01-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant waived their objection to the admissibility of an agent's statement by later introducing similar evidence, and that claims for 'disruption of production' were too speculative to be recoverable damages.
• Mitchell v. Swift & Co.
  151 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1945-12-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in excluding evidence offered for impeachment, or in entering judgment based on the jury's findings, which were supported by the evidence.
• Hook v. Nat'l Brick Co.
  150 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1945-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury could infer negligence from the circumstances of the accident, even without direct proof of the defendant's specific negligent act.
• Carter v. Kurn
  127 F.2d 415· 8th Cir.· 1942-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury, not the judge, should decide negligence when a statutory presumption of negligence is rebutted by evidence, especially when physical facts contradict oral testimony.
• Kaemmerling v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co.
  2 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1924-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint. A general allegation of negligence is sufficient against a general demurrer, and the presence of a dangerous electrical current where it should not be creates a presumption of negligence. F
• Hall v. Sunjoy Indus. Grp., Inc.
  764 F. Supp. 2d 1297· M.D. Fla.· 2011-02-18 ·cited 7×
  Summary judgment for defendants is granted because plaintiffs failed to present evidence of a defect, malfunction, or causation, and the chair was not in the defendant's exclusive control. Plaintiffs' motions for a presumption of negligence and dismissal without prejudice are den
• Great S. Peterbilt, Inc. v. Thomas C. Geiger and his wife
  616 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-04-13 ·cited 7×
  The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to prove negligence or causation.
• Cunningham v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  561 So. 2d 656· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-05-09 ·cited 7×
  Mary Cunningham sued General Motors and a Chevrolet dealer for personal injuries caused by a defective clutch mechanism in a 1981 Chevette. The trial court dismissed her strict liability claim with prejudice, but the appellate court reversed, holding that her pleadings were suffi
• Gustave Donner v. Morse Auto Rentals, Inc.
  147 So. 2d 577· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-12-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding negligence and agency, precluding summary judgment, and that the dismissal of claims based on fraudulent representation and implied warranty was erroneous.
• Merola v. Stang
  130 So. 2d 119· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-05-04 ·cited 7×
  A jury can determine a dentist's negligence without expert testimony when the injury, such as a severe cut to the lip and chin during dental work, is obvious and understandable by common knowledge.
• Martin v. Powell
  101 So. 2d 610· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-02-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was improperly applied because the circumstances did not eliminate other reasonable causes for the accident besides the defendant's negligence.
• Wagner v. Associated Shower Door Co.
  99 So. 2d 619· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-01-07 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the facts did not point to the defendant as the probable cause of the accident.
• Lobel v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  205 F.2d 927· 2d Cir.· 1953-07-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding certain testimony and evidence, as the alleged errors did not cast doubt on the trial's fairness or require upsetting the verdict.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Willis
  58 Fla. 307· Fla.· 1909-06-01 ·cited 7×
  Dr. J. H. Willis sued the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for injuries sustained when a train's violent lurch caused a toilet door to slam shut on his thumb while he was a passenger in a Pullman car. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict awarding Willis $608
• Barber v. Manatee Mem'l Hosp.
  388 So. 3d 279· Fla. 2d DCA· 2024-03-22 ·cited 6×
  A patient who suffered unexplained bilateral hip fractures while unconscious in a hospital's ICU sued for medical negligence. The appellate court reversed summary judgment, holding that the patient satisfied all prerequisites for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which permits a
• Corona v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.
  844 So. 2d 652· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-02-19 ·cited 6×
  Passengers on a cruise ship sued for negligence after the wife, who uses a cane, fell when a bathroom door handle came loose in their cabin. The trial court granted summary judgment for the cruise line, but the appellate court reversed, finding disputed material facts remain rega
• Cardina v. Kash N' Karry Food Stores, Inc.
  663 So. 2d 642· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-09-22 ·cited 6×
  Diane Cardina was injured when a case of tomatoes fell from a pallet in a Kash N' Karry store produce room while she was counting inventory. The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur, and the appellate court reverses the no-negligence verdict and
• Orthopedic & Sports Injury Clinic v. Wang Labs., Inc.
  922 F.2d 220· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The affidavit of an expert witness, detailing specific facts and opinions regarding computer data loss, was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding gross negligence.
• LEE v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  561 So. 2d 373· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The Florida appellate court reversed a directed verdict and new trial order granted by the trial judge in a personal injury case where a jury found Southern Bell negligent for allowing traffic to pass over a guy wire during installation, resulting in injury to Cecil Lee. The cour
• Burns v. Med. Ctr. Hosp. OF Largo
  544 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-06-02 ·cited 6×
• Bell v. MAY Dep't Stores Co.
  866 F.2d 452· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-24 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies to the elevator door incident, allowing a jury to infer negligence. The majority's rigid application of the doctrine improperly requires proof of negligence before the doctrine can be invoked.
• Nayereh S. Rassoulpour v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  826 F.2d 98· D.C. Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court correctly refused a res ipsa loquitur instruction but erred in admitting an accident report containing inadmissible hearsay, and that the failure to disclose another report was not harmless.
• Abdolreza Bagherzadeh v. Waldomar M. Roeser, M.D., & Orthopedic Surgery Ass'n, P.C.
  825 F.2d 1000· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions, stating a doctor does not guarantee results but must meet the standard of care, were not misleading or prejudicial in this medical malpractice case.
• Lane M. McGONIGAL v. Gearhart Indus., Inc.
  788 F.2d 321· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs waived their strict product liability claim by agreeing to proceed solely on a negligence theory after settling with the manufacturer, but that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict on the negligence claim, as the doctrine of r
• Mrs. Loretta G. Krause Curry v. Chevron
  779 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) is not the exclusive remedy for wrongful death claims and that state law claims can be brought alongside DOHSA claims, allowing for a jury trial. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims where negligence was no
• Croes v. United States
  726 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-01 ·cited 6×
  The government is not liable for the plaintiffs' injuries because the employee's detour to care for a personal pet was not within the scope of his employment.
• Mary v. Winans
  705 F.2d 1449· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Louisiana law does not impose strict liability on those who merely repair products, and that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur due to the failure to join all potential tortfeasors and negate pilot fault.
• Lima v. United States
  708 F.2d 502· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in striking expert testimony based on unreliable data, in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff for causation, or in its findings of fact. The court affirmed the dismissal of the action.
• Nat'l Steel Serv. Ctr. v. Gibbons
  693 F.2d 817· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal transportation law does not preempt state strict liability for an interstate rail carrier in this case, and affirmed the lower court's decision.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Riggs
  671 F.2d 810· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's technical error in substituting the subrogated insurer as the sole plaintiff was harmless and that federal procedural rules, not conflicting state law, govern joinder in diversity cases.
• Ploetz v. BIG Disc. Panel Ctr., Inc.
  402 So. 2d 64· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-08-12 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed a defense verdict in a negligence action where the plaintiff was injured by falling plywood panels, finding no error in the admission of evidence regarding customary practices.
• Hemingway v. Ochsner Clinic and/or Ochsner Found. Hosp.
  608 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to withstand a directed verdict, as defendant doctors' testimony established the standard of care regarding contraindicated drug use, and the record allowed inferences of negligence by both doctors and the hospital.
• Aguilar v. Flores
  549 F.2d 1161· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to apply the Iowa guest statute, as the Iowa Supreme Court's precedent indicated a liberal construction, and a subsequent case did not provide clear indication of a change.
• Quincy Lairsey and Frances Lairsey v. The Advance Abrasives Co.
  528 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury charge, when viewed as a whole, was not erroneous because it properly instructed the jury that they could infer negligence through res ipsa loquitur.
• Hanrahan v. ST. Vincent Hosp.
  516 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court properly refused to submit the res ipsa loquitur claim to the jury because the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary foundational facts of exclusive control and an occurrence that would not happen absent negligence.
• Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Kerr
  258 So. 2d 280· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was no reversible error in the trial court's rulings regarding directed verdicts, admissibility of evidence, and cost judgments.
• Janina Pietrucha v. Grant Hosp.
  447 F.2d 1029· 7th Cir.· 1971-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly denying the plaintiff's motion to call a hospital supervisor as an adverse witness, excluding the testimony of a prior treating physician, and allowing defense counsel to misstate the law regarding volun
• Simmons v. City Stores Co.
  412 F.2d 897· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not have been applied to allow the plaintiff's case to go to the jury.
• S. Fla. Sanitarium & Hosp., Inc. v. Hodge
  215 So. 2d 753· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that no reversible error was shown in the trial court's rulings.
• Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. BIG Chief Constr. Co., Inc.
  211 So. 2d 21· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-06-07 ·cited 6×
  A negligence action arose from a train-truck collision at a railroad crossing. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the truck owner (Big Chief Construction), but the appellate court reversed, holding that whether the truck's occupants adequately warned the approaching t
• Kulczynski v. Harrington
  207 So. 2d 505· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-02-27 ·cited 6×
  A truck owner appeals a judgment for damages arising from a child's injury caused by an improperly secured ladder rack that swung outward from the truck. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence of negligence and that the trial court properly de