{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Shutt v. Kaufman's, Inc. - not in defendant’s control and...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Shutt v. Kaufman’s, Inc. 165 Colo. 175 (1968) Fact: Operative Facts: the defendant sat down on a chair which sprung up a concealed trap which caused a shoe holder to fall on top of the plaintiff. The court issued a res ipsa liquitur doctrine, and the plaintiff appealed, after losing the suit. Issue: Whether the res ipsa liquitur doctrine applied. 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 the ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been used. Rational: The res ipsa liquitur instructions were improper in this case because the she and the handle was
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: not in defendant’s control and was not managed by it. However, defendant still won when plaintiff had an unfair advantage of the improper instruction, so appeals affirmed. Holding: Broad: Narrow: It is not proper to use a res ipsa loquitur when the defendant did not have control or management over the incident. Synthesis: This adds a new element to the Res Ipsa Loquitur, one that is of “rational.” An -> unequal access to information. That’s the reason why res ipsa loquitur was not applicable in this case (says this court). Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}