Unformatted text preview: Court’s Reasoning: There was no specific act done by the D to claim specific negligence. The act that caused the PL to fall was done while they were in control of the sporting event and was one in which it was inferred that they failed to properly inspect the bleachers. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur they were found guilty. The argument that the only permissible conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that the movement of the spectators at the end of the game caused the bleachers to collapse cannot be accepted. This conclusion would rest wholly on speculation. These is no evidence to support it. Limited control of the bleachers by the PL and other spectators does not make the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor inapplicable. Judgment and Order: Judgment affirmed Comments:...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/13/2008 for the course HISTORY 101 taught by Professor Jenkins during the Spring '08 term at Rutgers.
- Spring '08