Shifts burden of proof once the plaintiff establishes all three the D must

Shifts burden of proof once the plaintiff establishes

This preview shows page 18 - 20 out of 33 pages.

Shifts burden of proof – once the plaintiff establishes all three, the D must prove that it’s more likely than not that they did not breach (THIS IS BEST FOR THE PLAINTIFF) *IMPACT of res ipsa: it allows the P’s case to go to the jury even without having pinpointing a specific act of negligence D MUST CAN REBUT by showing: 1. Actual cause of harm 2. That D was not negligent / it was most likely someone else Hypo: We have a hotel. It’s spring break. The national Theta Ki convention is going on in this hotel. There is a lot of rowdy behavior, a lot of drinking, a lot of fraternizing. Plaintiff is walking by, when the chair flies out of window. Res ipsa? No, because there is no vicarious liability for hotel owner. You can’t know who it was that threw it out the window, and it was not someone for whom the defendant was responsible, therefore you can’t establish res ipsa. HUMAN TOE found in chewing tobacco. THAT’S RES ipsa right there! Direct evidence: includes things like 1. testimonial evidence like an eye witness 2. Physical evidence
Image of page 18
3.Ex. You have a cake on the table. You leave the room and you leave it with your dog, and your 10-year-old child. You come back and the cake is gone, with one slice missing. The 10-year-old says “the dog ate it.” That is DIRECT evidence but is not necessarily reliable. Circumstantial evidence: 1.Is when you bring in proof from fact A and from fact A you make an inference to prove fact B2.ex. You lock your lab in the house and leave a bday cake on the table. You go home to celebrate your bday and you unlock the house, and the bday cake is gone and the cake is on the floor. There is no one around besides the dog. What happened? The V.Cause in Fact: But-For Test pg. 197-206a.(Plaintiff must prove a connection bw the defendant’s negligent conduct and the harm suffered)i.Physical causation – did your breach (failure to act as reasonable person) actually cause my damages? ii.But for the defendant’s breach, i.e. failure to behave…, would the plaintiff have suffered the harm? b.
Image of page 19
Image of page 20

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 33 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture