Louisville v. Humphrey - the ordinary course of things...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
City of Louisville v. Humphrey 461 S.W. 2d 352 (1970) Fact: Operative Facts: A wife sues the state for the death of her husband, who was found drunk and was taken to jail, where he died because of a brain hemerage. The officers handling him showed no signs of harming him, and no witnesses showed that he was beaten or saw him get beaten. There were other inmates, but again, no signs of evidence. There could have been many different ways that he could have obtained his brain hemerage. The wife requested a res ipsa liquitur. Issue: Whether it an res ipsa liquitur applies to this case. Rule: Res Ipsa Liquitur doctrine only applies when the defendant had has exclusive control and management by defendant of the instrumentality which causes the injury, and the occurrence is such as in
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been used. Rational: The res ipsa liquitur doesnt apply in this case because if we assume the injuries occurred after his arrest, the court still have to speculate to whether the injuries were received by the hands of city employees or fellow prisoners. Because of the huge uncertainty, they cannot use res ipsa liquitur. Holding: Broad: If a circumstance occurs where there is a question on who is in control or would have committed the act or crime, then a res ipsa liquitur does not apply. Narrow: Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course TORTS 131 taught by Professor Keller during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online