Ybarra v. SpangardNo theory of negligence here—he was unconscious while the supposed injury happened. This isgood law in Cali but is rejected in other states. It is controversial because there are multiple Ds. The main problem is that the 2ndtenet of theDoctrine of RIL of exclusive control doesn’t seem to apply to any one particular D.If the first condition of RIL is satisfied then we know negligence is more probable than not. Thesecond condition says there is an instrumentality that caused that negligence that was specificallyin the Ds control. The third just rules out contributory negligence. So even without a theory ofnegligence, these three piece together to form “more probable than not” negligence to the D. Itis an indirect way of proving negligence. With more than 1 D, this application doesn’t apply. It is not more probable than not that thenegligence of any 1 D caused the injury. For ex., if there are 10 Ds, then there’s only a 10%chance that any one of them caused the injury.
The Court here distinguishes 2 different rationales for RIL. There is the Prosser theory (the onediscussed above) and the Wigmore theory, which is completely different. Wigmore theory saysforget about the 3 RIL conditions, but instead says there is an asymmetry of knowledge of theincident, where one side can know everything and the other can know nothing. The Wigmoretheory only works in a group setting if you sue the entire group, because then it’s certain that thegroup as a whole (at least one person within it) knows what happened. If you sue just oneperson, you can’t be sure of this. Ybarra has been rejected by some because there are modern discovery rules that would rid theasymmetrical side and because of Traynor’s thoughts in note 5 on pg. 106, that under Ybarra,anyone struck by a flower pot walking on the sidewalk can sue everyone from the building andso recover from all unless the Ds are able to point out the particular guilty party.The way that case can be distinguished from Ybarra though is that in Ybarra, all Ds are joined asa team to the same action (assisting in the surgery) where as in the flower pot case they’re notdoing the same activity.However, then we have Samson v. RiesingIn this case, RIL was not granted because of no exclusive control. In some ways it is a strongerRIL case than in Ybarra and in others it is weaker. Stronger asymmetry of info in Ybarra.Stronger team scenario in Ybarra. In Medical Malpractice– showing that you conform to custom is not merely evidence of non-negligence, but rather a full defense and you will get off. This is likely because people doubtcourts and juries are qualified to make a determination about what reasonable medical care is…better to just make the reasonable professional practice as the substitute for what reasonable caremight be. (pg. 106-107)What still must be determined is:1. What the customary practice is2. The departure from customary practice3. That the departure from customary practice caused the injury in questionSheeley v. Memorial Hospital